A PHP Error was encountered

Severity: Warning

Message: file_get_contents(https://...@pubfacts.com&api_key=b8daa3ad693db53b1410957c26c9a51b4908&a=1): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests

Filename: helpers/my_audit_helper.php

Line Number: 176

Backtrace:

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 176
Function: file_get_contents

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 250
Function: simplexml_load_file_from_url

File: /var/www/html/application/helpers/my_audit_helper.php
Line: 3122
Function: getPubMedXML

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 575
Function: pubMedSearch_Global

File: /var/www/html/application/controllers/Detail.php
Line: 489
Function: pubMedGetRelatedKeyword

File: /var/www/html/index.php
Line: 316
Function: require_once

Automated screening of research studies for systematic reviews using study characteristics. | LitMetric

Automated screening of research studies for systematic reviews using study characteristics.

Syst Rev

Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, Macquarie University, Sydney, Australia.

Published: April 2018

Background: Screening candidate studies for inclusion in a systematic review is time-consuming when conducted manually. Automation tools could reduce the human effort devoted to screening. Existing methods use supervised machine learning which train classifiers to identify relevant words in the abstracts of candidate articles that have previously been labelled by a human reviewer for inclusion or exclusion. Such classifiers typically reduce the number of abstracts requiring manual screening by about 50%.

Methods: We extracted four key characteristics of observational studies (population, exposure, confounders and outcomes) from the text of titles and abstracts for all articles retrieved using search strategies from systematic reviews. Our screening method excluded studies if they did not meet a predefined set of characteristics. The method was evaluated using three systematic reviews. Screening results were compared to the actual inclusion list of the reviews.

Results: The best screening threshold rule identified studies that mentioned both exposure (E) and outcome (O) in the study abstract. This screening rule excluded 93.7% of retrieved studies with a recall of 98%.

Conclusions: Filtering studies for inclusion in a systematic review based on the detection of key study characteristics in abstracts significantly outperformed standard approaches to automated screening and appears worthy of further development and evaluation.

Download full-text PDF

Source
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5918752PMC
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0724-7DOI Listing

Publication Analysis

Top Keywords

systematic reviews
12
automated screening
8
study characteristics
8
screening
8
studies inclusion
8
inclusion systematic
8
systematic review
8
reviews screening
8
studies
7
systematic
5

Similar Publications

Want AI Summaries of new PubMed Abstracts delivered to your In-box?

Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!