Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial

To determine the accuracy of single-reviewer screening in correctly classifying abstracts as relevant or irrelevant for literature reviews. We conducted a crowd-based, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Using the Cochrane Crowd platform, we randomly assigned eligible participants to 100 abs...

Full description

Saved in:

Bibliographic Details
Published in:	Journal of clinical epidemiology Vol. 121; pp. 20 - 28
Main Authors:	Gartlehner, Gerald, Affengruber, Lisa, Titscher, Viktoria, Noel-Storr, Anna, Dooley, Gordon, Ballarini, Nicolas, König, Franz
Format:	Journal Article
Language:	English
Published:	United States Elsevier Inc 01.05.2020 Elsevier Limited
Subjects:	Abstracting and Indexing - standards Abstracting and Indexing - statistics & numerical data Accuracy Adult Bibliographic data bases Clinical trials Confidence intervals Data Accuracy Decision making Depression - therapy Epidemiology Female Humans Internal Medicine Literature reviews Literature screening Male Peer Review, Research - standards Public health Quality standards Random Allocation Randomization Randomized controlled trial Rapid reviews Regression Analysis Sample Size Screening Sensitivity Sensitivity and Specificity Skills Standard deviation Studies Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Systematic review Systematic reviews Systematic Reviews as Topic United States > US Literature screening Systematic reviews Rapid reviews Accuracy Randomized controlled trial rapid reviews accuracy systematic reviews literature screening
ISSN:	0895-4356, 1878-5921, 1878-5921
Online Access:	Get full text
Tags:	Add Tag No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!

Be the first to leave a comment!