Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review
Background Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is generally recommended; this is conducted by 2 reviewers independently of each other (conventional double-screening). However, the approach i...
Gespeichert in:
| Veröffentlicht in: | BMC medical research methodology Jg. 19; H. 1; S. 132 - 9 |
|---|---|
| Hauptverfasser: | , , , , |
| Format: | Journal Article |
| Sprache: | Englisch |
| Veröffentlicht: |
London
BioMed Central
28.06.2019
BioMed Central Ltd BMC |
| Schlagworte: | |
| ISSN: | 1471-2288, 1471-2288 |
| Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
| Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
| Zusammenfassung: | Background
Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is generally recommended; this is conducted by 2 reviewers independently of each other (conventional double-screening). However, the approach is resource intensive, which can be a problem, as systematic reviews generally need to be completed within a defined period with a limited budget. The aim of the following methodological systematic review was to analyse the evidence available on whether single screening is equivalent to double screening in the screening process conducted in systematic reviews.
Methods
We searched Medline, PubMed and the Cochrane Methodology Register (last search 10/2018). We also used supplementary search techniques and sources (“similar articles” function in PubMed, conference abstracts and reference lists). We included all evaluations comparing single with double screening. Data were summarized in a structured, narrative way.
Results
The 4 evaluations included investigated a total of 23 single screenings (12 sets for screening involving 9 reviewers). The median proportion of missed studies was 5% (range 0 to 58%). The median proportion of missed studies was 3% for the 6 experienced reviewers (range: 0 to 21%) and 13% for the 3 reviewers with less experience (range: 0 to 58%).
The impact of missing studies on the findings of meta-analyses had been reported in 2 evaluations for 7 single screenings including a total of 18,148 references. In 3 of these 7 single screenings – all conducted by the same reviewer (with less experience) – the findings would have changed substantially. The remaining 4 of these 7 screenings were conducted by experienced reviewers and the missing studies had no impact or a negligible on the findings of the meta-analyses.
Conclusions
Single screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in rapid reviews, as long as it is conducted by an experienced reviewer. Further research on single screening is required, for instance, regarding factors influencing the number of studies missed. |
|---|---|
| Bibliographie: | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ISSN: | 1471-2288 1471-2288 |
| DOI: | 10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0 |