Dataset Information

The Impact of Systematic Review Automation Tools on Methodological Quality and Time Taken to Complete Systematic Review Tasks: Case Study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) are considered the highest level of evidence to answer research questions; however, they are time and resource intensive.

Objective

When 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?

Methods

A 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.

Results

The 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.

Conclusions

For 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.

SUBMITTER: Clark J

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8204237 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:A strong need exists for a validated tool that clearly defines peer review report quality in biomedical research, as it will allow evaluating interventions aimed at improving the peer review process in well-performed trials. We aim to identify and describe existing tools for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research. METHODS:We conducted a methodological systematic review by searching PubMed, EMBASE (via Ovid) and The Cochrane Methodology Register (via The Cochrane Library) as well as Google® for all reports in English describing a tool for assessing the quality of a peer review report in biomedical research. Data extraction was performed in duplicate using a standardized data extraction form. We extracted information on the structure, development and validation of each tool. We also identified quality components across tools using a systematic multi-step approach and we investigated quality domain similarities among tools by performing hierarchical, complete-linkage clustering analysis. RESULTS:We identified a total number of 24 tools: 23 scales and 1 checklist. Six tools consisted of a single item and 18 had several items ranging from 4 to 26. None of the tools reported a definition of 'quality'. Only 1 tool described the scale development and 10 provided measures of validity and reliability. Five tools were used as an outcome in a randomized controlled trial (RCT). Moreover, we classified the quality components of the 18 tools with more than one item into 9 main quality domains and 11 subdomains. The tools contained from two to seven quality domains. Some domains and subdomains were considered in most tools such as the detailed/thorough (11/18) nature of reviewer's comments. Others were rarely considered, such as whether or not the reviewer made comments on the statistical methods (1/18). CONCLUSION:Several tools are available to assess the quality of peer review reports; however, the development and validation process is questionable and the concepts evaluated by these tools vary widely. The results from this study and from further investigations will inform the development of a new tool for assessing the quality of peer review reports in biomedical research.

Project description:BACKGROUND:When randomisation is not possible, interrupted time series (ITS) design has increasingly been advocated as a more robust design to evaluating health system quality improvement (QI) interventions given its ability to control for common biases in healthcare QI. However, there is a potential risk of producing misleading results when this rather robust design is not used appropriately. We performed a methodological systematic review of the literature to investigate the extent to which the use of ITS has followed best practice standards and recommendations in the evaluation of QI interventions. METHODS:We searched multiple databases from inception to June 2018 to identify QI intervention studies that were evaluated using ITS. There was no restriction on date, language and participants. Data were synthesised narratively using appropriate descriptive statistics. The risk of bias for ITS studies was assessed using the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organisation of Care standard criteria. The systematic review protocol was registered in PROSPERO (registration number: CRD42018094427). RESULTS:Of 4061 potential studies and 2028 unique records screened for inclusion, 120 eligible studies assessed eight QI strategies and were from 25 countries. Most studies were published since 2010 (86.7%), reported data using monthly interval (71.4%), used ITS without a control (81%) and modelled data using segmented regression (62.5%). Autocorrelation was considered in 55% of studies, seasonality in 20.8% and non-stationarity in 8.3%. Only 49.2% of studies specified the ITS impact model. The risk of bias was high or very high in 72.5% of included studies and did not change significantly over time. CONCLUSIONS:The use of ITS in the evaluation of health system QI interventions has increased considerably over the past decade. However, variations in methodological considerations and reporting of ITS in QI remain a concern, warranting a need to develop and reinforce formal reporting guidelines to improve its application in the evaluation of health system QI interventions.

Project description:ObjectiveTo evaluate systematically the quality of the cohort studies on rheumatic diseases in China.MethodsRelevant databases were searched to find cohort studies on rheumatic diseases in China, and the basic information included in the literature was extracted and analyzed. Chinese and English literature were then compared with regard to methodological quality, according to the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS).ResultsIn total, we included 46 cohort studies, with 19 studies published in English and 27 studies published in Chinese. With regard to the basic characteristics of the literature, 78.26% of the studies were published in the past four years; 16 studies were associated with hyperuricemia, followed by eight studies involving systemic lupus erythematosus. The sample size of the studies in Chinese was lower than that in English studies (P< 0.05). The English literature was superior to the Chinese literature in terms of informed consent, ethical review and selection of statistical analysis methods. The methodology quality of the 46 included studies showed that the English and Chinese NOS scores were 5.59 ± 1.25 and 6.06 ± 1.11, respectively, and the difference was significant (P< 0.01). The "representativeness of the exposed group", "demonstration that outcome of interest was not present at start of study", and the "adequacy of follow up of cohorts" scores were relatively low in Chinese and English studies. The score for "was follow-up long enough for outcomes to occur" item in English was higher than that in the Chinese studies; however, the "study controls for the most important factor" score for Chinese papers was better than that for the English papers.ConclusionThe Chinese rheumatic disease cohort studies started late, with a small sample size and fewer types of rheumatism. The quality of Chinese studies was better than English studies, and all reports were insufficient. In particular, "selecting exposed groups", "controlling the outcomes before study implementation" and "adequacy of follow-up" needed improvement.

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.