Dataset Information

Crowdsourcing the Citation Screening Process for Systematic Reviews: Validation Study.

ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND:Systematic reviews (SRs) are often cited as the highest level of evidence available as they involve the identification and synthesis of published studies on a topic. Unfortunately, it is increasingly challenging for small teams to complete SR procedures in a reasonable time period, given the exponential rise in the volume of primary literature. Crowdsourcing has been postulated as a potential solution. OBJECTIVE:The feasibility objective of this study was to determine whether a crowd would be willing to perform and complete abstract and full text screening. The validation objective was to assess the quality of the crowd's work, including retention of eligible citations (sensitivity) and work performed for the investigative team, defined as the percentage of citations excluded by the crowd. METHODS:We performed a prospective study evaluating crowdsourcing essential components of an SR, including abstract screening, document retrieval, and full text assessment. Using CrowdScreenSR citation screening software, 2323 articles from 6 SRs were available to an online crowd. Citations excluded by less than or equal to 75% of the crowd were moved forward for full text assessment. For the validation component, performance of the crowd was compared with citation review through the accepted, gold standard, trained expert approach. RESULTS:Of 312 potential crowd members, 117 (37.5%) commenced abstract screening and 71 (22.8%) completed the minimum requirement of 50 citation assessments. The majority of participants were undergraduate or medical students (192/312, 61.5%). The crowd screened 16,988 abstracts (median: 8 per citation; interquartile range [IQR] 7-8), and all citations achieved the minimum of 4 assessments after a median of 42 days (IQR 26-67). Crowd members retrieved 83.5% (774/927) of the articles that progressed to the full text phase. A total of 7604 full text assessments were completed (median: 7 per citation; IQR 3-11). Citations from all but 1 review achieved the minimum of 4 assessments after a median of 36 days (IQR 24-70), with 1 review remaining incomplete after 3 months. When complete crowd member agreement at both levels was required for exclusion, sensitivity was 100% (95% CI 97.9-100) and work performed was calculated at 68.3% (95% CI 66.4-70.1). Using the predefined alternative 75% exclusion threshold, sensitivity remained 100% and work performed increased to 72.9% (95% CI 71.0-74.6; P<.001). Finally, when a simple majority threshold was considered, sensitivity decreased marginally to 98.9% (95% CI 96.0-99.7; P=.25) and work performed increased substantially to 80.4% (95% CI 78.7-82.0; P<.001). CONCLUSIONS:Crowdsourcing of citation screening for SRs is feasible and has reasonable sensitivity and specificity. By expediting the screening process, crowdsourcing could permit the investigative team to focus on more complex SR tasks. Future directions should focus on developing a user-friendly online platform that allows research teams to crowdsource their reviews.

SUBMITTER: Nama N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC6658317 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Apr

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Crowdsourcing the Citation Screening Process for Systematic Reviews: Validation Study.

Nama Nassr N Sampson Margaret M Barrowman Nicholas N Sandarage Ryan R Menon Kusum K Macartney Gail G Murto Kimmo K Vaccani Jean-Philippe JP Katz Sherri S Zemek Roger R Nasr Ahmed A McNally James Dayre JD

Journal of medical Internet research 20190429 4

<h4>Background</h4>Systematic reviews (SRs) are often cited as the highest level of evidence available as they involve the identification and synthesis of published studies on a topic. Unfortunately, it is increasingly challenging for small teams to complete SR procedures in a reasonable time period, given the exponential rise in the volume of primary literature. Crowdsourcing has been postulated as a potential solution.<h4>Objective</h4>The feasibility objective of this study was to determine w ...[more]

PMID: 31033444

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundCrowdsourcing engages the help of large numbers of people in tasks, activities or projects, usually via the internet. One application of crowdsourcing is the screening of citations for inclusion in a systematic review. There is evidence that a 'Crowd' of non-specialists can reliably identify quantitative studies, such as randomized controlled trials, through the assessment of study titles and abstracts. In this feasibility study, we investigated crowd performance of an online, topic-based citation-screening task, assessing titles and abstracts for inclusion in a single mixed-studies systematic review.MethodsThis study was embedded within a mixed studies systematic review of maternity care, exploring the effects of training healthcare professionals in intrapartum cardiotocography. Citation-screening was undertaken via Cochrane Crowd, an online citizen science platform enabling volunteers to contribute to a range of tasks identifying evidence in health and healthcare. Contributors were recruited from users registered with Cochrane Crowd. Following completion of task-specific online training, the crowd and the review team independently screened 9546 titles and abstracts. The screening task was subsequently repeated with a new crowd following minor changes to the crowd agreement algorithm based on findings from the first screening task. We assessed the crowd decisions against the review team categorizations (the 'gold standard'), measuring sensitivity, specificity, time and task engagement.ResultsSeventy-eight crowd contributors completed the first screening task. Sensitivity (the crowd's ability to correctly identify studies included within the review) was 84% (N = 42/50), and specificity (the crowd's ability to correctly identify excluded studies) was 99% (N = 9373/9493). Task completion was 33 h for the crowd and 410 h for the review team; mean time to classify each record was 6.06 s for each crowd participant and 3.96 s for review team members. Replicating this task with 85 new contributors and an altered agreement algorithm found 94% sensitivity (N = 48/50) and 98% specificity (N = 9348/9493). Contributors reported positive experiences of the task.ConclusionIt might be feasible to recruit and train a crowd to accurately perform topic-based citation-screening for mixed studies systematic reviews, though resource expended on the necessary customised training required should be factored in. In the face of long review production times, crowd screening may enable a more time-efficient conduct of reviews, with minimal reduction of citation-screening accuracy, but further research is needed.

Project description:BackgroundStandard practice for conducting systematic reviews (SRs) is time consuming and involves the study team screening hundreds or thousands of citations. As the volume of medical literature grows, the citation set sizes and corresponding screening efforts increase. While larger team size and alternate screening methods have the potential to reduce workload and decrease SR completion times, it is unknown whether investigators adapt team size or methods in response to citation set sizes. Using a cross-sectional design, we sought to understand how citation set size impacts (1) the total number of authors or individuals contributing to screening and (2) screening methods.MethodsMEDLINE was searched in April 2019 for SRs on any health topic. A total of 1880 unique publications were identified and sorted into five citation set size categories (after deduplication): < 1,000, 1,001-2,500, 2,501-5,000, 5,001-10,000, and > 10,000. A random sample of 259 SRs were selected (~ 50 per category) for data extraction and analysis.ResultsWith the exception of the pairwise t test comparing the under 1000 and over 10,000 categories (median 5 vs. 6, p = 0.049) no statistically significant relationship was evident between author number and citation set size. While visual inspection was suggestive, statistical testing did not consistently identify a relationship between citation set size and number of screeners (title-abstract, full text) or data extractors. However, logistic regression identified investigators were significantly more likely to deviate from gold-standard screening methods (i.e. independent duplicate screening) with larger citation sets. For every doubling of citation size, the odds of using gold-standard screening decreased by 15 and 20% at title-abstract and full text review, respectively. Finally, few SRs reported using crowdsourcing (n = 2) or computer-assisted screening (n = 1).ConclusionsLarge citation set sizes present a challenge to SR teams, especially when faced with time-sensitive health policy questions. Our study suggests that with increasing citation set size, authors are less likely to adhere to gold-standard screening methods. It is possible that adjunct screening methods, such as crowdsourcing (large team) and computer-assisted technologies, may provide a viable solution for authors to complete their SRs in a timely manner.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews are important for informing clinical practice and health policy. The aim of this study was to examine the bibliometrics of systematic reviews and to determine the amount of variance in citations predicted by the journal impact factor (JIF) alone and combined with several other characteristics.MethodsWe conducted a bibliometric analysis of 1,261 systematic reviews published in 2008 and the citations to them in the Scopus database from 2008 to June 2012. Potential predictors of the citation impact of the reviews were examined using descriptive, univariate and multiple regression analysis.ResultsThe mean number of citations per review over four years was 26.5 (SD ± 29.9) or 6.6 citations per review per year. The mean JIF of the journals in which the reviews were published was 4.3 (SD ± 4.2). We found that 17% of the reviews accounted for 50% of the total citations and 1.6% of the reviews were not cited. The number of authors was correlated with the number of citations (r = 0.215, P < 0.001). Higher numbers of citations were associated with the following characteristics: first author from the United States (36.5 citations), an ICD-10 chapter heading of Neoplasms (31.8 citations), type of intervention classified as Investigation, Diagnostics or Screening (34.7 citations) and having an international collaboration (32.1 citations). The JIF alone explained more than half of the variation in citations (R(2) = 0.59) in univariate analysis. Adjusting for both JIF and type of intervention increased the R2 value to 0.81. Fourteen percent of reviews published in the top quartile of JIFs (? 5.16) received citations in the bottom quartile (eight or fewer), whereas 9% of reviews published in the lowest JIF quartile (? 2.06) received citations in the top quartile (34 or more). Six percent of reviews in journals with no JIF were also in the first quartile of citations.ConclusionsThe JIF predicted over half of the variation in citations to the systematic reviews. However, the distribution of citations was markedly skewed. Some reviews in journals with low JIFs were well-cited and others in higher JIF journals received relatively few citations; hence the JIF did not accurately represent the number of citations to individual systematic reviews.

Project description:BackgroundStringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is generally recommended; this is conducted by 2 reviewers independently of each other (conventional double-screening). However, the approach is resource intensive, which can be a problem, as systematic reviews generally need to be completed within a defined period with a limited budget. The aim of the following methodological systematic review was to analyse the evidence available on whether single screening is equivalent to double screening in the screening process conducted in systematic reviews.MethodsWe searched Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Methodology Register (last search 10/2018). We also used supplementary search techniques and sources ("similar articles" function in PubMed, conference abstracts and reference lists). We included all evaluations comparing single with double screening. Data were summarized in a structured, narrative way.ResultsThe 4 evaluations included investigated a total of 23 single screenings (12 sets for screening involving 9 reviewers). The median proportion of missed studies was 5% (range 0 to 58%). The median proportion of missed studies was 3% for the 6 experienced reviewers (range: 0 to 21%) and 13% for the 3 reviewers with less experience (range: 0 to 58%). The impact of missing studies on the findings of meta-analyses had been reported in 2 evaluations for 7 single screenings including a total of 18,148 references. In 3 of these 7 single screenings - all conducted by the same reviewer (with less experience) - the findings would have changed substantially. The remaining 4 of these 7 screenings were conducted by experienced reviewers and the missing studies had no impact or a negligible on the findings of the meta-analyses.ConclusionsSingle screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in rapid reviews, as long as it is conducted by an experienced reviewer. Further research on single screening is required, for instance, regarding factors influencing the number of studies missed.

Project description:BackgroundAssessment of the quality of medical evidence available on the web is a critical step in the preparation of systematic reviews. Existing tools that automate parts of this task validate the quality of individual studies but not of entire bodies of evidence and focus on a restricted set of quality criteria.ObjectiveWe proposed a quality assessment task that provides an overall quality rating for each body of evidence (BoE), as well as finer-grained justification for different quality criteria according to the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation formalization framework. For this purpose, we constructed a new data set and developed a machine learning baseline system (EvidenceGRADEr).MethodsWe algorithmically extracted quality-related data from all summaries of findings found in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Each BoE was defined by a set of population, intervention, comparison, and outcome criteria and assigned a quality grade (high, moderate, low, or very low) together with quality criteria (justification) that influenced that decision. Different statistical data, metadata about the review, and parts of the review text were extracted as support for grading each BoE. After pruning the resulting data set with various quality checks, we used it to train several neural-model variants. The predictions were compared against the labels originally assigned by the authors of the systematic reviews.ResultsOur quality assessment data set, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews Quality of Evidence, contains 13,440 instances, or BoEs labeled for quality, originating from 2252 systematic reviews published on the internet from 2002 to 2020. On the basis of a 10-fold cross-validation, the best neural binary classifiers for quality criteria detected risk of bias at 0.78 F1 (P=.68; R=0.92) and imprecision at 0.75 F1 (P=.66; R=0.86), while the performance on inconsistency, indirectness, and publication bias criteria was lower (F1 in the range of 0.3-0.4). The prediction of the overall quality grade into 1 of the 4 levels resulted in 0.5 F1. When casting the task as a binary problem by merging the Grading of Recommendation, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation classes (high+moderate vs low+very low-quality evidence), we attained 0.74 F1. We also found that the results varied depending on the supporting information that is provided as an input to the models.ConclusionsDifferent factors affect the quality of evidence in the context of systematic reviews of medical evidence. Some of these (risk of bias and imprecision) can be automated with reasonable accuracy. Other quality dimensions such as indirectness, inconsistency, and publication bias prove more challenging for machine learning, largely because they are much rarer. This technology could substantially reduce reviewer workload in the future and expedite quality assessment as part of evidence synthesis.

Project description:ObjectiveTo examine whether network meta-analyses, increasingly used to assess comparative effectiveness of healthcare interventions, follow the key methodological recommendations for reporting and conduct of systematic reviews.DesignMethodological systematic review of reports of network meta-analyses.Data sourcesCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, Medline, and Embase, searched from inception to 12 July 2012.Review methodsAll network meta-analyses comparing clinical efficacy of three or more interventions based on randomised controlled trials, excluding meta-analyses with an open loop network of three interventions. We assessed the reporting of general characteristics and key methodological components of the systematic review process using two composite outcomes. For some components, if reporting was adequate, we assessed their conduct quality.ResultsOf 121 network meta-analyses covering a wide range of medical areas, 100 (83%) assessed pharmacological interventions and 11 (9%) non-pharmacological interventions; 56 (46%) were published in journals with a high impact factor. The electronic search strategy for each database was not reported in 88 (73%) network meta-analyses; for 36 (30%), the primary outcome was not clearly identified. Overall, 61 (50%) network meta-analyses did not report any information regarding the assessment of risk of bias of individual studies, and 103 (85%) did not report any methods to assess the likelihood of publication bias. Overall, 87 (72%) network meta-analyses did not report the literature search, searched only one database, did not search other sources, or did not report an assessment of risk of bias of individual studies. These methodological components did not differ by publication in a general or specialty journal or by public or private funding.ConclusionsEssential methodological components of the systematic review process-conducting a literature search and assessing risk of bias of individual studies-are frequently lacking in reports of network meta-analyses, even when published in journals with high impact factors.

Dataset Information

Crowdsourcing the Citation Screening Process for Systematic Reviews: Validation Study.

Publications

Crowdsourcing the Citation Screening Process for Systematic Reviews: Validation Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets