Objectives: To evaluate the impact of text mining (TM) on the sensitivity and specificity of title and abstract screening strategies for systematic reviews (SRs).
Study Design And Setting: Twenty reviewers each evaluated a 500-citation set. We compared five screening methods: conventional double screen (CDS), single screen, double screen with TM, combined double screen and single screen with TM, and single screen with TM. Rayyan, Abstrackr, and SWIFT-Review were used for each TM method. The results of a published SR were used as the reference standard.
Results: The mean sensitivity and specificity achieved by CDS were 97.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.7, 99.3) and 95.0% (95% CI: 93.0, 97.1). When compared with single screen, CDS provided a greater sensitivity without a decrease in specificity. Rayyan, Abstrackr, and SWIFT-Review identified all relevant studies. Specificity was often higher for TM-assisted methods than that for CDS, although with mean differences of only one-to-two percentage points. For every 500 citations not requiring manual screening, 216 minutes (95% CI: 169, 264) could be saved.
Conclusion: TM-assisted screening methods resulted in similar sensitivity and modestly improved specificity as compared to CDS. The time saved with TM makes this a promising new tool for SR.
Download full-text PDF |
Source |
---|---|
http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.07.010 | DOI Listing |
Enter search terms and have AI summaries delivered each week - change queries or unsubscribe any time!