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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:

Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:	Journal of clinical epidemiology Jg. 121; S. 20 - 28
Hauptverfasser:	Gartlehner, Gerald, Affengruber, Lisa, Titscher, Viktoria, Noel-Storr, Anna, Dooley, Gordon, Ballarini, Nicolas, König, Franz
Format:	Journal Article
Sprache:	Englisch
Veröffentlicht:	United States Elsevier Inc 01.05.2020 Elsevier Limited
Schlagworte:	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-Zugang:	Volltext
Tags:	Tag hinzufügen Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!

Schreiben Sie den ersten Kommentar!