Dataset Information

Evaluating the relationship between citation set size, team size and screening methods used in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Standard 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.

Methods

MEDLINE 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.

Results

With 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).

Conclusions

Large 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.

SUBMITTER: O'Hearn K

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8264476 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundWhen planning clinical trials, it is a key element to choose appropriate outcomes that ensure the comparability of effects of interventions in ways that minimise bias. We hypothesise that outcome measures in cardiothoracic surgical trials are inconsistent and without standard. Therefore, comparing the relative effectiveness of interventions across studies is problematic. We surmise that cardiothoracic research has focused habitually on the identification of risk factors and on the reduction of adverse outcomes with less consideration of factors that contribute to well being and positive health outcomes (salutogenesis).Methods and findingsWe conducted a systematic review of reviews to determine both the type and number of outcomes reported in current cardiothoracic surgery interventional research, in order to identify a list of potential outcomes for a minimum core outcome set (COS). Special focus was placed on outcomes that emphasise salutogenesis. We interpreted salutogenic outcomes as those relating to optimum and/or positive health and well being. We searched Issue 7 (July 2014) of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Systematic reviews of randomised trials on non-minimal-invasive off- or on-pump cardiothoracic surgery (elective and emergency, excluding transplants) investigating pre-, intra- or postsurgical interventions related to the outcome of the procedure were eligible for inclusion. We excluded protocols and withdrawn systematic reviews. Two review authors extracted outcome data independently. Unique lists of salutogenically and non-salutogenically focused outcomes were established. 15 systematic reviews involving 371 randomized trials and 58,253 patients were included in this review. Applied definitions of single and composite endpoints varied significantly, and patient-centred, salutogenically focused outcomes were seldom reported. One third of included reviews did not assess patient-centred outcomes at all; all other reviews were unable to perform meta-analyses due to an absence of data or heterogeneity in outcome measures. This compares to 36 non-salutogenically focused outcome domains representing 121 individual non-salutogenically focused outcomes, whereof 50% were assessed only once. Measures of mortality, cerebrovascular complications and hospitalisation were reported most frequently. Two reviews chose a composite endpoint as primary outcome. Pooled analysis of composite endpoints was not possible, as the required data was not reported per patient in all components.ConclusionIn cardiothoracic surgical trials, choice and definition of non-salutogenically focused single and composite outcomes are inconsistent. There is an absence of patient centred, salutogenically focused outcome parameters in cardiac trials. We recommend the development of a core outcome set of salutogenically focused and non-salutogenically focused outcomes for cardiothoracic surgical research.

Project description:BackgroundSystematic 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.ObjectiveThe 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.MethodsWe 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.ResultsOf 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).ConclusionsCrowdsourcing 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.

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:BACKGROUND:A pretest probability must be selected to calculate data to help clinicians, guideline boards and policy makers interpret diagnostic accuracy parameters. When multiple analyses for the same target condition are compared, identical pretest probabilities might be selected to facilitate the comparison. Some pretest probabilities may lead to exaggerations of the patient harms or benefits, and guidance on how and why to select a specific pretest probability is minimally described. Therefore, the aim of this study was to assess the data sources and methods used in Cochrane diagnostic test accuracy (DTA) reviews for determining pretest probabilities to facilitate the interpretation of DTA parameters. A secondary aim was to assess the use of identical pretest probabilities to compare multiple meta-analyses within the same target condition. METHODS:Cochrane DTA reviews presenting at least one meta-analytic estimate of the sensitivity and/or specificity as a primary analysis published between 2008 and January 2018 were included. Study selection and data extraction were performed by one author and checked by other authors. Observed data sources (e.g. studies in the review, or external sources) and methods to select pretest probabilities (e.g. median) were categorized. RESULTS:Fifty-nine DTA reviews were included, comprising of 308 meta-analyses. A pretest probability was used in 148 analyses. Authors used included studies in the DTA review, external sources, and author consensus as data sources for the pretest probability. Measures of central tendency with or without a measure of dispersion were used to determine the pretest probabilities, with the median most commonly used. Thirty-two target conditions had at least one identical pretest probability for all of the meta-analyses within their target condition. About half of the used identical pretest probabilities were inside the prevalence ranges from all analyses within a target condition. CONCLUSIONS:Multiple sources and methods were used to determine (identical) pretest probabilities in Cochrane DTA reviews. Indirectness and severity of downstream consequences may influence the acceptability of the certainty in calculated data with pretest probabilities. Consider: whether to present normalized frequencies, the influence of pretest probabilities on normalized frequencies, and whether to use identical pretest probabilities for meta-analyses in a target condition.

Project description:BackgroundPolicy makers and others often require synthesis of knowledge in an area within six months or less. Traditional systematic reviews typically take at least 12 months to conduct. Rapid reviews streamline traditional systematic review methods in order to synthesize evidence within a shortened timeframe. There is great variation in the process of conducting rapid reviews. This review sought to examine methods used for rapid reviews, as well as implications of methodological streamlining in terms of rigour, bias, and results.MethodsA comprehensive search strategy--including five electronic databases, grey literature, hand searching of relevant journals, and contacting key informants--was undertaken. All titles and abstracts (n = 1,989) were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Relevance criteria included articles published between 1995 and 2009 about conducting rapid reviews or addressing comparisons of rapid reviews versus traditional reviews. Full articles were retrieved for any titles deemed relevant by either reviewer (n = 70). Data were extracted from all relevant methodological articles (n = 45) and from exemplars of rapid review methods (n = 25).ResultsRapid reviews varied from three weeks to six months; various methods for speeding up the process were employed. Some limited searching by years, databases, language, and sources beyond electronic searches. Several employed one reviewer for title and abstract reviewing, full text review, methodological quality assessment, and/or data extraction phases. Within rapid review studies, accelerating the data extraction process may lead to missing some relevant information. Biases may be introduced due to shortened timeframes for literature searching, article retrieval, and appraisal.ConclusionsThis review examined the continuum between diverse rapid review methods and traditional systematic reviews. It also examines potential implications of streamlined review methods. More of these rapid reviews need to be published in the peer-reviewed literature with an emphasis on articulating methods employed. While one consistent methodological approach may not be optimal or appropriate, it is important that researchers undertaking reviews within the rapid to systematic continuum provide detailed descriptions of methods used and discuss the implications of their chosen methods in terms of potential bias introduced. Further research comparing full systematic reviews with rapid reviews will enhance understanding of the limitations of these methods.