Dataset Information

Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review.

ABSTRACT: Introduction:While potentially reducing decision errors, decision support systems can introduce new types of errors. Automation bias (AB) happens when users become overreliant on decision support, which reduces vigilance in information seeking and processing. Most research originates from the human factors literature, where the prevailing view is that AB occurs only in multitasking environments. Objectives:This review seeks to compare the human factors and health care literature, focusing on the apparent association of AB with multitasking and task complexity. Data sources:EMBASE, Medline, Compendex, Inspec, IEEE Xplore, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, and Business Source Premiere from 1983 to 2015. Study selection:Evaluation studies where task execution was assisted by automation and resulted in errors were included. Participants needed to be able to verify automation correctness and perform the task manually. Methods:Tasks were identified and grouped. Task and automation type and presence of multitasking were noted. Each task was rated for its verification complexity. Results:Of 890 papers identified, 40 met the inclusion criteria; 6 were in health care. Contrary to the prevailing human factors view, AB was found in single tasks, typically involving diagnosis rather than monitoring, and with high verification complexity. Limitations:The literature is fragmented, with large discrepancies in how AB is reported. Few studies reported the statistical significance of AB compared to a control condition. Conclusion:AB appears to be associated with the degree of cognitive load experienced in decision tasks, and appears to not be uniquely associated with multitasking. Strategies to minimize AB might focus on cognitive load reduction.

SUBMITTER: Lyell D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7651899 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review.

Lyell David D Coiera Enrico E

Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA 20170301 2

<h4>Introduction</h4>While potentially reducing decision errors, decision support systems can introduce new types of errors. Automation bias (AB) happens when users become overreliant on decision support, which reduces vigilance in information seeking and processing. Most research originates from the human factors literature, where the prevailing view is that AB occurs only in multitasking environments.<h4>Objectives</h4>This review seeks to compare the human factors and health care literature, ...[more]

PMID: 27516495

Similar Datasets

Project description:Background: The reliable and usable (semi)automation of data extraction can support the field of systematic review by reducing the workload required to gather information about the conduct and results of the included studies. This living systematic review examines published approaches for data extraction from reports of clinical studies. Methods: We systematically and continually search MEDLINE, Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers (IEEE), arXiv, and the dblp computer science bibliography databases. Full text screening and data extraction are conducted within an open-source living systematic review application created for the purpose of this review. This iteration of the living review includes publications up to a cut-off date of 22 April 2020. Results: In total, 53 publications are included in this version of our review. Of these, 41 (77%) of the publications addressed extraction of data from abstracts, while 14 (26%) used full texts. A total of 48 (90%) publications developed and evaluated classifiers that used randomised controlled trials as the main target texts. Over 30 entities were extracted, with PICOs (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) being the most frequently extracted. A description of their datasets was provided by 49 publications (94%), but only seven (13%) made the data publicly available. Code was made available by 10 (19%) publications, and five (9%) implemented publicly available tools. Conclusions: This living systematic review presents an overview of (semi)automated data-extraction literature of interest to different types of systematic review. We identified a broad evidence base of publications describing data extraction for interventional reviews and a small number of publications extracting epidemiological or diagnostic accuracy data. The lack of publicly available gold-standard data for evaluation, and lack of application thereof, makes it difficult to draw conclusions on which is the best-performing system for each data extraction target. With this living review we aim to review the literature continually.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The implementation of trauma systems in many high-income countries over the last 50 years has led to important reductions in injury mortality and disability in many healthcare jurisdictions. Injury organizations including the American College of Surgeons and the Trauma Association of Canada as well as the World Health Organization provide consensus-based recommendations on resources and processes for optimal injury care. Many hospitals treating trauma patients seek verification to demonstrate that they meet these recommendations. This process may be labeled differently across jurisdictions. In Canada for example, it is called accreditation, but it has the same objective and very similar modalities. The objective of the study described in this protocol is to systematically review evidence on the effectiveness of trauma center verification for improving clinical processes and patient outcomes in injury care. METHODS:We will perform a systematic review of studies evaluating the association between trauma center verification and hospital mortality (primary outcome), as well as morbidity, resource utilization, and processes of care (secondary outcomes). We will search CINAHL, EMBASE, HealthStar, MEDLINE, and ProQuest databases, as well as key injury organization websites for gray literature. We will assess the methodological quality of studies using the Risk Of Bias In Non-randomized Studies - of Interventions (ROBINS-I) assessment tool. We are planning to conduct a meta-analysis if feasible based on the number of included studies and their heterogeneity. We will evaluate the quality of cumulative evidence and strength of recommendations using the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) working group methodology. DISCUSSION:This review will provide a synthesis of the body of evidence on trauma center verification effectiveness. Results could reinforce current verification modalities and may suggest ways to optimize them. Results will be published in a peer-reviewed journal and presented at an international clinical conference. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION:PROSPERO CRD42018107083.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) are considered the highest level of evidence to answer research questions; however, they are time and resource intensive.ObjectiveWhen comparing SR tasks done manually, using standard methods, versus those same SR tasks done using automated tools, (1) what is the difference in time to complete the SR task and (2) what is the impact on the error rate of the SR task?MethodsA case study compared specific tasks done during the conduct of an SR on prebiotic, probiotic, and synbiotic supplementation in chronic kidney disease. Two participants (manual team) conducted the SR using current methods, comprising a total of 16 tasks. Another two participants (automation team) conducted the tasks where a systematic review automation (SRA) tool was available, comprising of a total of six tasks. The time taken and error rate of the six tasks that were completed by both teams were compared.ResultsThe approximate time for the manual team to produce a draft of the background, methods, and results sections of the SR was 126 hours. For the six tasks in which times were compared, the manual team spent 2493 minutes (42 hours) on the tasks, compared to 708 minutes (12 hours) spent by the automation team. The manual team had a higher error rate in two of the six tasks-regarding Task 5: Run the systematic search, the manual team made eight errors versus three errors made by the automation team; regarding Task 12: Assess the risk of bias, 25 assessments differed from a reference standard for the manual team compared to 20 differences for the automation team. The manual team had a lower error rate in one of the six tasks-regarding Task 6: Deduplicate search results, the manual team removed one unique study and missed zero duplicates versus the automation team who removed two unique studies and missed seven duplicates. Error rates were similar for the two remaining compared tasks-regarding Task 7: Screen the titles and abstracts and Task 9: Screen the full text, zero relevant studies were excluded by both teams. One task could not be compared between groups-Task 8: Find the full text.ConclusionsFor the majority of SR tasks where an SRA tool was used, the time required to complete that task was reduced for novice researchers while methodological quality was maintained.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The increased use of meta-analysis in systematic reviews of healthcare interventions has highlighted several types of bias that can arise during the completion of a randomised controlled trial. Study publication bias and outcome reporting bias have been recognised as a potential threat to the validity of meta-analysis and can make the readily available evidence unreliable for decision making. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS:In this update, we review and summarise the evidence from cohort studies that have assessed study publication bias or outcome reporting bias in randomised controlled trials. Twenty studies were eligible of which four were newly identified in this update. Only two followed the cohort all the way through from protocol approval to information regarding publication of outcomes. Fifteen of the studies investigated study publication bias and five investigated outcome reporting bias. Three studies have found that statistically significant outcomes had a higher odds of being fully reported compared to non-significant outcomes (range of odds ratios: 2.2 to 4.7). In comparing trial publications to protocols, we found that 40-62% of studies had at least one primary outcome that was changed, introduced, or omitted. We decided not to undertake meta-analysis due to the differences between studies. CONCLUSIONS:This update does not change the conclusions of the review in which 16 studies were included. Direct empirical evidence for the existence of study publication bias and outcome reporting bias is shown. There is strong evidence of an association between significant results and publication; studies that report positive or significant results are more likely to be published and outcomes that are statistically significant have higher odds of being fully reported. Publications have been found to be inconsistent with their protocols. Researchers need to be aware of the problems of both types of bias and efforts should be concentrated on improving the reporting of trials.

Project description:BackgroundThe demand for high-quality systematic literature reviews (SRs) for evidence-based medical decision-making is growing. SRs are costly and require the scarce resource of highly skilled reviewers. Automation technology has been proposed to save workload and expedite the SR workflow. We aimed to provide a comprehensive overview of SR automation studies indexed in PubMed, focusing on the applicability of these technologies in real world practice.MethodsIn November 2022, we extracted, combined, and ran an integrated PubMed search for SRs on SR automation. Full-text English peer-reviewed articles were included if they reported studies on SR automation methods (SSAM), or automated SRs (ASR). Bibliographic analyses and knowledge-discovery studies were excluded. Record screening was performed by single reviewers, and the selection of full text papers was performed in duplicate. We summarized the publication details, automated review stages, automation goals, applied tools, data sources, methods, results, and Google Scholar citations of SR automation studies.ResultsFrom 5321 records screened by title and abstract, we included 123 full text articles, of which 108 were SSAM and 15 ASR. Automation was applied for search (19/123, 15.4%), record screening (89/123, 72.4%), full-text selection (6/123, 4.9%), data extraction (13/123, 10.6%), risk of bias assessment (9/123, 7.3%), evidence synthesis (2/123, 1.6%), assessment of evidence quality (2/123, 1.6%), and reporting (2/123, 1.6%). Multiple SR stages were automated by 11 (8.9%) studies. The performance of automated record screening varied largely across SR topics. In published ASR, we found examples of automated search, record screening, full-text selection, and data extraction. In some ASRs, automation fully complemented manual reviews to increase sensitivity rather than to save workload. Reporting of automation details was often incomplete in ASRs.ConclusionsAutomation techniques are being developed for all SR stages, but with limited real-world adoption. Most SR automation tools target single SR stages, with modest time savings for the entire SR process and varying sensitivity and specificity across studies. Therefore, the real-world benefits of SR automation remain uncertain. Standardizing the terminology, reporting, and metrics of study reports could enhance the adoption of SR automation techniques in real-world practice.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic reviews and meta-analyses of pre-clinical studies, in vivo animal experiments in particular, can influence clinical care. Publication bias is one of the major threats of validity in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Previous empirical studies suggested that systematic reviews and meta-analyses have become more prevalent until 2010 and found evidence for compromised methodological rigor with a trend towards improvement. We aim to comprehensively summarize and update the evidence base on systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies, their methodological quality and assessment of publication bias in particular.Methods/designThe objectives of this systematic review are as follows: •To investigate the epidemiology of published systematic reviews of animal studies until present. •To examine methodological features of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies with special attention to the assessment of publication bias. •To investigate the influence of systematic reviews of animal studies on clinical research by examining citations of the systematic reviews by clinical studies. Eligible studies for this systematic review constitute systematic reviews and meta-analyses that summarize in vivo animal experiments with the purpose of reviewing animal evidence to inform human health. We will exclude genome-wide association studies and animal experiments with the main purpose to learn more about fundamental biology, physical functioning or behavior. In addition to the inclusion of systematic reviews and meta-analyses identified by other empirical studies, we will systematically search Ovid Medline, Embase, ToxNet, and ScienceDirect from 2009 to January 2013 for further eligible studies without language restrictions. Two reviewers working independently will assess titles, abstracts, and full texts for eligibility and extract relevant data from included studies. Data reporting will involve a descriptive summary of meta-analyses and systematic reviews.DiscussionResults are expected to be publicly available later in 2013 and may form the basis for recommendations to improve the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of animal studies and their use with respect to clinical care.

Dataset Information

Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review.

Publications

Automation bias and verification complexity: a systematic review.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets