...
  • 主题
高级搜索  >
历史搜索 清空历史
首页> 外文期刊>Systematic Reviews >Title and Abstract Screening and Evaluation in Systematic Reviews (TASER): a pilot randomised controlled trial of title and abstract screening by medical students
【24h】

Title and Abstract Screening and Evaluation in Systematic Reviews (TASER): a pilot randomised controlled trial of title and abstract screening by medical students

机译：系统评价中的标题和摘要筛选和评估（TASER）：由医学生进行的标题和摘要筛选的试点随机对照试验

获取原文
           
页面导航
  • 摘要
  • 著录项
  • 相似文献
  • 相关主题

摘要

Background The production of high quality systematic reviews requires rigorous methods that are time-consuming and resource intensive. Citation screening is a key step in the systematic review process. An opportunity to improve the efficiency of systematic review production involves the use of non-expert groups and new technologies for citation screening. We performed a pilot study of citation screening by medical students using four screening methods and compared students’ performance to experienced review authors. Methods The aims of this pilot randomised controlled trial were to provide preliminary data on the accuracy of title and abstract screening by medical students, and on the effect of screening modality on screening accuracy and efficiency. Medical students were randomly allocated to title and abstract screening using one of the four modalities and required to screen 650 citations from a single systematic review update. The four screening modalities were a reference management software program (EndNote), Paper, a web-based systematic review workflow platform (ReGroup) and a mobile screening application (Screen2Go). Screening sensitivity and specificity were analysed in a complete case analysis using a chi-squared test and Kruskal-Wallis rank sum test according to screening modality and compared to a final set of included citations selected by expert review authors. Results Sensitivity of medical students’ screening decisions ranged from 46.7% to 66.7%, with students using the web-based platform performing significantly better than the paper-based group. Specificity ranged from 93.2% to 97.4% with the lowest specificity seen with the web-based platform. There was no significant difference in performance between the other three modalities. Conclusions Medical students are a feasible population to engage in citation screening. Future studies should investigate the effect of incentive systems, training and support and analytical methods on screening performance. Systematic review registration Cochrane Database CD001048
机译：背景技术高质量的系统评价需要严格的方法，这些方法既费时又消耗资源。引文筛选是系统审查过程中的关键步骤。一个提高系统评价的效率的机会包括使用非专家组和新技术进行引文筛选。我们对医学生使用四种筛查方法进行的引文筛查进行了一项初步研究，并将学生的表现与经验丰富的评论作者进行了比较。方法这项试验性随机对照试验的目的是为医学生提供标题和摘要筛查的准确性以及筛查方式对筛查准确性和效率的影响提供初步数据。使用四种方式之一，将医学生随机分配到标题和摘要筛查中，并要求从单个系统评价更新中筛查650种引文。四种筛选方式是参考管理软件程序（EndNote），Paper，基于Web的系统审查工作流程平台（ReGroup）和移动筛选应用程序（Screen2Go）。根据筛查方式，使用卡方检验和Kruskal-Wallis秩和检验在完整的病例分析中分析筛查的敏感性和特异性，并与专家评审作者选择的最终引文集进行比较。结果医科学生筛选决定的敏感性在46.7％至66.7％之间，使用基于Web的平台的学生的表现明显好于基于纸质的小组。特异性范围从93.2％到97.4％，其中基于Web平台的特异性最低。其他三种模式之间的性能没有显着差异。结论医学生是从事引文筛选的可行人群。未来的研究应调查激励系统，培训和支持以及分析方法对筛选绩效的影响。系统评价注册Cochrane数据库CD001048

著录项

相似文献

  • 外文文献
  • 中文文献
  • 专利
获取原文

客服邮箱：kefu@zhangqiaokeyan.com

京公网安备：11010802029741号 ICP备案号：京ICP备15016152号-6 六维联合信息科技 (北京) 有限公司©版权所有

  • 客服微信

  • 服务号