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...
Uložené v:
| Vydané v: | BMC medical research methodology Ročník 19; číslo 1; s. 132 - 9 |
|---|---|
| Hlavní autori: | , , , , |
| Médium: | Journal Article |
| Jazyk: | English |
| Vydavateľské údaje: |
London
BioMed Central
28.06.2019
BioMed Central Ltd BMC |
| Predmet: | |
| ISSN: | 1471-2288, 1471-2288 |
| On-line prístup: | Získať plný text |
| Tagy: |
Pridať tag
Žiadne tagy, Buďte prvý, kto otaguje tento záznam!
|
| Abstract | 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. |
|---|---|
| AbstractList | 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. 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. 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%). 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. 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. 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.BACKGROUNDStringent 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.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.METHODSWe 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.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.RESULTSThe 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.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.CONCLUSIONSSingle 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. 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. Keywords: Systematic reviews, Study selection, Methodology 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. 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. 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. 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. Abstract 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. |
| ArticleNumber | 132 |
| Audience | Academic |
| Author | Knelangen, Marco Sieben, Wiebke Bühn, Stefanie Pieper, Dawid Waffenschmidt, Siw |
| Author_xml | – sequence: 1 givenname: Siw orcidid: 0000-0001-6860-6699 surname: Waffenschmidt fullname: Waffenschmidt, Siw email: siw.waffenschmidt@iqwig.de organization: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care – sequence: 2 givenname: Marco surname: Knelangen fullname: Knelangen, Marco organization: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care – sequence: 3 givenname: Wiebke surname: Sieben fullname: Sieben, Wiebke organization: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care – sequence: 4 givenname: Stefanie surname: Bühn fullname: Bühn, Stefanie organization: Institute for Research in Operative Medicine Witten/Herdecke University – sequence: 5 givenname: Dawid surname: Pieper fullname: Pieper, Dawid organization: Institute for Research in Operative Medicine Witten/Herdecke University |
| BackLink | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31253092$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed |
| BookMark | eNp9kstu1TAURSNURB_wAUxQJCZMUvxI_GCAVFUUKlViAIwtxz5JfZXYxU5udcf8OE7Tol5AVQax7LWXTuJ9XBz44KEoXmN0irFg7xMmgtcVwrJCXJAKPSuOcM1xRYgQB4_Wh8VxShuEMBeUvSgOKSYNRZIcFb--Od8PUCYTAXxel1uIaU6lCX4LfnLB66G0YW73oC7EMk2z3ZUJBjALVjpfpl2aYNSTM2WErYPb9KHU5QjTdbBhCL0zWfYP9LJ43ukhwav790nx4-LT9_Mv1dXXz5fnZ1eVYTWeKoqsMUYyy9rG1hpzA9zYhgkp2qaxJp9jkXe0tl1OtADCthy0rDuha0noSXG5em3QG3UT3ajjTgXt1N1GiL3SMY81gGoYb7XkHaKyq6G20lBtOZMYUQpWd9n1cXXdzO0I1uRfFfWwJ90_8e5a9WGrWCMlpTIL3t0LYvg5Q5rU6JKBYdAewpwUIQ1iOINNRt-uaK_zaM53IRvNgquzRhJJmGALdfofKj8WRpdvEzqX9_cCbx5_wp_ZH8qRAb4CJoaUInTKuEkvd53NblAYqaWGaq2hyjVUSw0Vykn8V_JB_lSGrJmUWd9DVJswx9y-9EToN2S1844 |
| CitedBy_id | crossref_primary_10_1007_s10461_022_03872_6 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0302014 crossref_primary_10_3390_pharmacy8020058 crossref_primary_10_1002_jrsm_1675 crossref_primary_10_1080_08927936_2024_2339630 crossref_primary_10_1177_14604582251347120 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13244_023_01409_6 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_puhe_2024_12_056 crossref_primary_10_1080_01924036_2024_2388238 crossref_primary_10_1080_1750984X_2023_2266814 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prosdent_2023_04_021 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2024_111637 crossref_primary_10_1093_ajcn_nqab002 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_expneurol_2024_115062 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00520_022_07468_7 crossref_primary_10_1002_ajpa_24850 crossref_primary_10_2196_62939 crossref_primary_10_3390_info16030215 crossref_primary_10_1080_20523211_2024_2395535 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_073901 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11292_022_09508_y crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0246454 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph21020177 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_021_01632_6 crossref_primary_10_3390_children10081372 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jpeds_2023_113448 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pec_2023_107707 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_pec_2023_107708 crossref_primary_10_1186_s40561_024_00293_x crossref_primary_10_1007_s41042_024_00182_1 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jad_2023_05_041 crossref_primary_10_1111_anae_15474 crossref_primary_10_3390_asi5030051 crossref_primary_10_1093_sleep_zsac218 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_apmr_2022_11_011 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_064322 crossref_primary_10_1177_2150135120934763 crossref_primary_10_1002_cl2_1268 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ajp_2022_103135 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41390_024_03693_4 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_zefq_2020_09_005 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12909_023_04076_9 crossref_primary_10_1177_15248380221134634 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph19063587 crossref_primary_10_1111_jan_16493 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm12216828 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_dhjo_2021_101164 crossref_primary_10_1111_famp_12610 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_022_08958_4 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_n160 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11948_024_00493_1 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_067268 crossref_primary_10_3390_nu17172804 crossref_primary_10_18502_kss_v10i1_17852 crossref_primary_10_1111_nicc_12732 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_msksp_2024_103145 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_enbuild_2024_114550 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_022_02011_5 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_nbt_2023_11_005 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0376892921000333 crossref_primary_10_1108_ARCH_07_2024_0288 crossref_primary_10_1177_15271544211071099 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41893_020_00617_y crossref_primary_10_1177_20552076251375835 crossref_primary_10_1073_pnas_2411962122 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_022_14029_4 crossref_primary_10_1080_10447318_2023_2247568 crossref_primary_10_1111_cch_13060 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11357_025_01850_z crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_024_02320_4 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0310117 crossref_primary_10_11124_JBIES_23_00281 crossref_primary_10_3390_ctn7030024 crossref_primary_10_1177_01678329251323445 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_023_09869_8 crossref_primary_10_2196_67192 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jad_2020_09_017 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph192214851 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_2021_068791 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_inpm_2025_100551 crossref_primary_10_1186_s41927_025_00540_9 crossref_primary_10_1017_S0266462320000720 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_045596 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_021_01342_6 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12961_025_01297_w crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjebm_2022_112185 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_023_02334_x crossref_primary_10_1016_j_cpr_2024_102427 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41390_021_01396_8 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_022_02106_z crossref_primary_10_2196_39727 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_2188_3565 crossref_primary_10_3389_fspor_2023_1296407 crossref_primary_10_3390_healthcare9070889 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_025_02870_8 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0331294 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0260619 crossref_primary_10_1542_peds_2023_064556 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0317209 crossref_primary_10_2196_35929 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjgh_2021_008311 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12652_025_05007_w crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2020_06_027 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclepro_2022_133155 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_onehlt_2025_101086 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_024_02571_8 crossref_primary_10_1051_fopen_2022009 crossref_primary_10_1177_01640275211043486 crossref_primary_10_2196_69908 crossref_primary_10_3390_children10030525 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2020_01_005 crossref_primary_10_1111_opn_12321 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12909_024_05024_x crossref_primary_10_1080_15546128_2022_2096163 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_healun_2021_08_007 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40264_020_00918_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2025_111738 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph18158230 crossref_primary_10_1192_bjo_2025_17 crossref_primary_10_3389_fpsyg_2025_1508808 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_euros_2023_07_005 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_019_1222_2 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2024_098379 crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_cs_2384 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2024_111463 crossref_primary_10_1111_jocn_16239 crossref_primary_10_1089_trgh_2020_0047 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13049_025_01380_9 crossref_primary_10_1093_bjsw_bcaf055 crossref_primary_10_1177_13657127241287322 crossref_primary_10_1007_s40670_020_01131_8 crossref_primary_10_1111_medu_14543 crossref_primary_10_1177_17579139211018243 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12913_020_05657_w crossref_primary_10_1111_obr_13417 crossref_primary_10_3233_JAD_240315 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_022_13937_9 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12966_021_01162_3 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_childyouth_2024_107450 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_arr_2025_102801 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_021_01463_y crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jht_2021_10_004 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_023_41882_z crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pdig_0000201 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclepro_2023_136189 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2022_064914 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00590_021_03008_x crossref_primary_10_1038_s41598_021_83006_5 crossref_primary_10_1007_s11126_025_10152_8 crossref_primary_10_3390_sports11080150 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2023_07_010 crossref_primary_10_3389_fspor_2023_1035023 crossref_primary_10_1093_intqhc_mzad114 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jpsychires_2022_05_031 crossref_primary_10_1080_07317115_2021_1995561 crossref_primary_10_1002_cesm_12044 crossref_primary_10_1002_mds_29406 crossref_primary_10_3390_jcm14051740 crossref_primary_10_1111_wrr_13009 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0282157 crossref_primary_10_1123_jmld_2024_0065 crossref_primary_10_3389_fnins_2025_1502417 crossref_primary_10_3390_educsci12110769 crossref_primary_10_1177_1078155220940043 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jad_2023_12_080 crossref_primary_10_1093_tbm_ibac054 crossref_primary_10_1111_scs_13319 crossref_primary_10_1113_EP092884 crossref_primary_10_1200_GO_22_00374 crossref_primary_10_1177_20552076241302230 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_healthpol_2020_09_002 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jad_2023_03_012 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_trre_2023_100792 crossref_primary_10_1352_1944_7558_127_4_313 crossref_primary_10_4103_jips_jips_524_23 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_ijnurstu_2022_104208 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_wombi_2023_08_007 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjgh_2020_003567 crossref_primary_10_1177_10575677241282014 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_046532 crossref_primary_10_1177_10775587221118156 crossref_primary_10_1080_09593985_2024_2391823 crossref_primary_10_2196_34166 crossref_primary_10_1080_15569543_2025_2510255 crossref_primary_10_1080_09593985_2023_2284823 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13668_021_00382_0 crossref_primary_10_1080_01612840_2021_1978599 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_seizure_2025_06_016 crossref_primary_10_1089_omi_2023_0049 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_020_01413_7 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jshs_2020_03_001 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph19105947 crossref_primary_10_1177_02692163231183007 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph20054176 crossref_primary_10_2196_46148 crossref_primary_10_1111_jsr_14241 crossref_primary_10_1136_spcare_2025_005477 crossref_primary_10_1177_02601060251336823 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_healthplace_2022_102893 crossref_primary_10_1192_bjo_2022_574 crossref_primary_10_2196_39182 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_compedu_2025_105245 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_imr_2020_100457 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamainternmed_2024_2999 crossref_primary_10_3390_info16050378 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0287984 crossref_primary_10_1080_00472778_2021_1955125 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jksuci_2022_06_018 crossref_primary_10_1097_SLA_0000000000005442 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_heliyon_2024_e29930 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13721_022_00384_0 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_envsci_2024_103966 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2024_086407 crossref_primary_10_1002_cam4_7063 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_msksp_2025_103290 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjnph_2021_000248 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_023_16668_7 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pdig_0000123 crossref_primary_10_1080_10790268_2021_1923261 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_020_01129_1 crossref_primary_10_3390_psych5020035 crossref_primary_10_1007_s12671_023_02148_x crossref_primary_10_3390_sports10060094 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_021_01335_5 crossref_primary_10_3390_nu14214444 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_021_01271_4 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0293013 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jbusres_2025_115631 crossref_primary_10_7326_M23_3389 crossref_primary_10_7717_peerj_18143 crossref_primary_10_3390_children9071044 crossref_primary_10_1007_s13555_025_01542_8 crossref_primary_10_1007_s00520_020_05845_8 crossref_primary_10_1089_jayao_2020_0136 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph19052669 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0233355 crossref_primary_10_3389_fneur_2020_588479 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjgh_2019_001972 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_resplu_2023_100491 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_puhe_2025_105837 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_scs_2024_105901 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0293028 crossref_primary_10_1017_rsm_2025_3 crossref_primary_10_1111_jebm_12594 crossref_primary_10_3389_fsufs_2024_1410205 crossref_primary_10_1111_iwj_14846 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_prevetmed_2020_104913 crossref_primary_10_1177_00343552211043257 crossref_primary_10_1055_a_2309_8968 crossref_primary_10_3390_mti8120114 crossref_primary_10_3389_ijph_2021_1603993 crossref_primary_10_1080_13284207_2022_2163158 crossref_primary_10_1093_jamia_ocaf063 crossref_primary_10_2196_49002 crossref_primary_10_1177_0734242X241285423 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_techfore_2024_123692 crossref_primary_10_1089_ind_2024_0055 crossref_primary_10_1371_journal_pone_0322626 crossref_primary_10_3390_ijerph22091330 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_025_02644_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_neubiorev_2022_104633 crossref_primary_10_1111_jebm_12468 crossref_primary_10_1177_03128962251350335 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmj_2023_076335 crossref_primary_10_1111_camh_12671 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_023_02240_2 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_dsx_2022_102445 crossref_primary_10_3390_biomedinformatics5010015 crossref_primary_10_1111_jan_16603 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10648_024_09862_5 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_023_02181_w crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2024_085901 crossref_primary_10_1001_jamanetworkopen_2024_3379 crossref_primary_10_14324_LRE_22_1_33 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12877_022_03340_9 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_soncn_2023_151579 crossref_primary_10_1002_jrsm_1664 crossref_primary_10_1111_jcpp_13786 crossref_primary_10_3390_ani15081143 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10597_023_01196_w crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2020_044684 crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_024_02587_0 crossref_primary_10_1038_s41559_020_01295_x crossref_primary_10_1186_s13643_022_02109_w crossref_primary_10_1002_cbm_2230 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12912_021_00654_8 crossref_primary_10_1136_bmjopen_2023_078414 crossref_primary_10_1007_s10896_025_00813_4 crossref_primary_10_1093_jphsr_rmae028 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jeph_2024_202526 crossref_primary_10_1016_j_jclinepi_2020_10_007 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12889_024_19050_3 crossref_primary_10_1177_00236772251331677 |
| Cites_doi | 10.1186/s12874-016-0216-1 10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.024 10.1186/s13643-018-0839-x 10.1002/sim.1190 10.1186/s13643-016-0315-4 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 10.17226/13059 10.1017/S0950268811000677 10.1002/jrsm.1237 10.1186/s13643-016-0360-z 10.1136/bmj.h796 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.011 10.1186/s12874-017-0431-4 10.1002/jrsm.1215 |
| ContentType | Journal Article |
| Copyright | The Author(s). 2019 COPYRIGHT 2019 BioMed Central Ltd. |
| Copyright_xml | – notice: The Author(s). 2019 – notice: COPYRIGHT 2019 BioMed Central Ltd. |
| DBID | C6C AAYXX CITATION CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM DOA |
| DOI | 10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0 |
| DatabaseName | Springer Nature OA Free Journals CrossRef Medline MEDLINE MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE MEDLINE PubMed MEDLINE - Academic PubMed Central (Full Participant titles) DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals |
| DatabaseTitle | CrossRef MEDLINE Medline Complete MEDLINE with Full Text PubMed MEDLINE (Ovid) MEDLINE - Academic |
| DatabaseTitleList | MEDLINE - Academic MEDLINE |
| Database_xml | – sequence: 1 dbid: DOA name: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals url: https://www.doaj.org/ sourceTypes: Open Website – sequence: 2 dbid: NPM name: PubMed url: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?db=PubMed sourceTypes: Index Database – sequence: 3 dbid: 7X8 name: MEDLINE - Academic url: https://search.proquest.com/medline sourceTypes: Aggregation Database |
| DeliveryMethod | fulltext_linktorsrc |
| Discipline | Medicine |
| EISSN | 1471-2288 |
| EndPage | 9 |
| ExternalDocumentID | oai_doaj_org_article_567ba97f039f4e4d9c3ad7691033edaf PMC6599339 A592926865 31253092 10_1186_s12874_019_0782_0 |
| Genre | Journal Article |
| GeographicLocations | Germany |
| GeographicLocations_xml | – name: Germany |
| GroupedDBID | --- 0R~ 23N 2WC 53G 5VS 6J9 6PF 7X7 88E 8FI 8FJ AAFWJ AAJSJ AASML AAWTL ABDBF ABUWG ACGFO ACGFS ACIHN ACUHS ADBBV ADRAZ ADUKV AEAQA AENEX AFKRA AFPKN AHBYD AHMBA AHYZX ALMA_UNASSIGNED_HOLDINGS AMKLP AMTXH AOIJS BAPOH BAWUL BCNDV BENPR BFQNJ BMC BPHCQ BVXVI C6C CCPQU CS3 DIK DU5 E3Z EAD EAP EAS EBD EBLON EBS EJD EMB EMK EMOBN ESX F5P FYUFA GROUPED_DOAJ GX1 HMCUK HYE IAO IHR INH INR ITC KQ8 M1P M48 MK0 M~E O5R O5S OK1 OVT P2P PGMZT PHGZM PHGZT PIMPY PJZUB PPXIY PQQKQ PROAC PSQYO PUEGO RBZ RNS ROL RPM RSV SMD SOJ SV3 TR2 TUS UKHRP W2D WOQ WOW XSB AAYXX AFFHD CITATION ALIPV CGR CUY CVF ECM EIF NPM 7X8 5PM |
| ID | FETCH-LOGICAL-c641t-30dccc96d6b5d4a17ce7cd56898b55dc30d187cdaadfc64bee8db7ea94f8a4923 |
| IEDL.DBID | DOA |
| ISICitedReferencesCount | 342 |
| ISICitedReferencesURI | http://www.webofscience.com/api/gateway?GWVersion=2&SrcApp=Summon&SrcAuth=ProQuest&DestLinkType=CitingArticles&DestApp=WOS_CPL&KeyUT=000473193600001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| ISSN | 1471-2288 |
| IngestDate | Fri Oct 03 12:50:41 EDT 2025 Tue Nov 04 01:40:20 EST 2025 Sun Nov 09 10:24:57 EST 2025 Tue Nov 11 10:28:00 EST 2025 Tue Nov 04 18:06:40 EST 2025 Thu Apr 03 06:52:23 EDT 2025 Sat Nov 29 06:38:57 EST 2025 Tue Nov 18 22:03:24 EST 2025 Sat Sep 06 07:35:35 EDT 2025 |
| IsDoiOpenAccess | true |
| IsOpenAccess | true |
| IsPeerReviewed | true |
| IsScholarly | true |
| Issue | 1 |
| Keywords | Methodology Systematic reviews Study selection |
| Language | English |
| License | Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated. |
| LinkModel | DirectLink |
| MergedId | FETCHMERGED-LOGICAL-c641t-30dccc96d6b5d4a17ce7cd56898b55dc30d187cdaadfc64bee8db7ea94f8a4923 |
| Notes | ObjectType-Article-1 SourceType-Scholarly Journals-1 ObjectType-Feature-2 content type line 23 |
| ORCID | 0000-0001-6860-6699 |
| OpenAccessLink | https://doaj.org/article/567ba97f039f4e4d9c3ad7691033edaf |
| PMID | 31253092 |
| PQID | 2250613935 |
| PQPubID | 23479 |
| PageCount | 9 |
| ParticipantIDs | doaj_primary_oai_doaj_org_article_567ba97f039f4e4d9c3ad7691033edaf pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_6599339 proquest_miscellaneous_2250613935 gale_infotracmisc_A592926865 gale_infotracacademiconefile_A592926865 pubmed_primary_31253092 crossref_citationtrail_10_1186_s12874_019_0782_0 crossref_primary_10_1186_s12874_019_0782_0 springer_journals_10_1186_s12874_019_0782_0 |
| PublicationCentury | 2000 |
| PublicationDate | 2019-06-28 |
| PublicationDateYYYYMMDD | 2019-06-28 |
| PublicationDate_xml | – month: 06 year: 2019 text: 2019-06-28 day: 28 |
| PublicationDecade | 2010 |
| PublicationPlace | London |
| PublicationPlace_xml | – name: London – name: England |
| PublicationTitle | BMC medical research methodology |
| PublicationTitleAbbrev | BMC Med Res Methodol |
| PublicationTitleAlternate | BMC Med Res Methodol |
| PublicationYear | 2019 |
| Publisher | BioMed Central BioMed Central Ltd BMC |
| Publisher_xml | – name: BioMed Central – name: BioMed Central Ltd – name: BMC |
| References | MM Haby (782_CR7) 2016; 14 782_CR3 CD Patnode (782_CR9) 2018; 54 I Shemilt (782_CR10) 2016; 5 C Garritty (782_CR6) 2016; 5 S Waffenschmidt (782_CR18) 2018; 7 782_CR16 782_CR5 E Kaltenthaler (782_CR8) 2016; 16 BJ Wilhelm (782_CR14) 2011; 139 P Edwards (782_CR4) 2002; 21 A O'Mara-Eves (782_CR1) 2015; 4 H Olofsson (782_CR2) 2017; 8 JA Doust (782_CR13) 2005; 58 782_CR12 MT Pham (782_CR11) 2016; 7 M Köhler (782_CR17) 2015; 350 T Mathes (782_CR15) 2017; 17 |
| References_xml | – ident: 782_CR3 – volume: 16 start-page: 108 issue: 1 year: 2016 ident: 782_CR8 publication-title: BMC Med Res Methodol doi: 10.1186/s12874-016-0216-1 – volume: 14 start-page: 83 issue: 1 year: 2016 ident: 782_CR7 publication-title: Health Res Policy Syst doi: 10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7 – volume: 54 start-page: S19 issue: 1 Suppl 1 year: 2018 ident: 782_CR9 publication-title: Am J Prev Med doi: 10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.024 – ident: 782_CR16 – volume: 7 start-page: 166 issue: 1 year: 2018 ident: 782_CR18 publication-title: Syst Rev doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0839-x – volume: 21 start-page: 1635 issue: 11 year: 2002 ident: 782_CR4 publication-title: Stat Med doi: 10.1002/sim.1190 – volume: 5 start-page: 140 issue: 1 year: 2016 ident: 782_CR10 publication-title: Syst Rev. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0315-4 – volume: 4 start-page: 5 issue: 1 year: 2015 ident: 782_CR1 publication-title: Syst Rev. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 – ident: 782_CR12 doi: 10.17226/13059 – volume: 139 start-page: 1127 issue: 8 year: 2011 ident: 782_CR14 publication-title: Epidemiol Infect doi: 10.1017/S0950268811000677 – volume: 8 start-page: 275 issue: 3 year: 2017 ident: 782_CR2 publication-title: Res Syn Meth doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1237 – volume: 5 start-page: 184 issue: 1 year: 2016 ident: 782_CR6 publication-title: Syst Rev. doi: 10.1186/s13643-016-0360-z – volume: 350 start-page: h796 year: 2015 ident: 782_CR17 publication-title: BMJ. doi: 10.1136/bmj.h796 – ident: 782_CR5 – volume: 58 start-page: 444 issue: 5 year: 2005 ident: 782_CR13 publication-title: J Clin Epidemiol doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.011 – volume: 17 start-page: 152 issue: 1 year: 2017 ident: 782_CR15 publication-title: BMC Med Res Methodol doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0431-4 – volume: 7 start-page: 433 issue: 4 year: 2016 ident: 782_CR11 publication-title: Res Syn Meth. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1215 |
| SSID | ssj0017836 |
| Score | 2.6576774 |
| Snippet | Background
Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is... Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is generally... Background Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection process is... Abstract Background Stringent requirements exist regarding the transparency of the study selection process and the reliability of results. A 2-step selection... |
| SourceID | doaj pubmedcentral proquest gale pubmed crossref springer |
| SourceType | Open Website Open Access Repository Aggregation Database Index Database Enrichment Source Publisher |
| StartPage | 132 |
| SubjectTerms | Abstracting and Indexing - methods Abstracting and Indexing - standards Abstracting and Indexing - statistics & numerical data Budgets Conferences and conventions Data collection Evaluation Health Sciences Humans Information Storage and Retrieval - methods Information Storage and Retrieval - standards Information Systems - standards Information Systems - statistics & numerical data Medical research Medicine Medicine & Public Health Methodology Methods Publications - standards Publications - statistics & numerical data PubMed - standards PubMed - statistics & numerical data quality reporting Research Article Statistical Theory and Methods Statistics for Life Sciences Study selection Systematic reviews Systematic Reviews as Topic Theory of Medicine/Bioethics |
| SummonAdditionalLinks | – databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary 1997-Present dbid: RSV link: http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1bi9UwEA6yiviy3rW6SgRBUIpt09x8W8XFFxdhVfYt5Nb1wNIjp-fsH_CPO5Omx-2uCvpWmklp0i-Tmc7kG0KeK9XJlvMG_wFYdFDq0qmoS8-9blXno6pcKjYhDw_V8bH-lM9xD1O2-xSSTJo6LWslXg81UrOD64uHbsAsBD_9KkeyGXTRj75uQwd4LCGHL3_bbbYBJZ7-y9r43HZ0MVXyQrw0bUMHN_9rALfIbrY66f4Ik9vkSuzvkOsfc1z9LvlxBA86jRR0CPi1cE0xW2Mz0PNJ6TQsN24mBAYvTfy0dEjldECMLnr6ix2aZrLTN9TSsVb1pGsvC90jXw7ef373oczlGUov2npdsip477UIwvHQ2lr6KH3gQmnlOA8e2msFd6wNHfRwMSrkcra67ZRFXrj7ZKdf9vEhobKyVbBVHRr02IRzNliwCwFedfTRtwWppm9mfOYuxxIapyb5MEqYcXINTK7ByTVVQV5uu3wfiTv-JvwWgbAVRM7tdGO5OjF5CRsupLNadhXTXRvboD2zQQqwtxiLwXYFeYEwMqgZ4OW8zQccYIjIsWX2OZiijVCCF2RvJgkr2s-an01ANNiEaXB9XG4GA8oX7S_NQObBCMztOzMwVVmlm4LIGWRng5q39ItviVBccLBSmS7Iqwm4Jmuy4c9z9uifpB-TG01CvigbtUd21qtNfEKu-bP1Ylg9TSv4J2BKRuQ priority: 102 providerName: Springer Nature |
| Title | Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review |
| URI | https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/31253092 https://www.proquest.com/docview/2250613935 https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PMC6599339 https://doaj.org/article/567ba97f039f4e4d9c3ad7691033edaf |
| Volume | 19 |
| WOSCitedRecordID | wos000473193600001&url=https%3A%2F%2Fcvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com%2F%23%21%2Fsearch%3Fho%3Df%26include.ft.matches%3Dt%26l%3Dnull%26q%3D |
| hasFullText | 1 |
| inHoldings | 1 |
| isFullTextHit | |
| isPrint | |
| journalDatabaseRights | – providerCode: PRVADU databaseName: BioMed Central Open Access Free customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2288 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017836 issn: 1471-2288 databaseCode: RBZ dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.biomedcentral.com/search/ providerName: BioMedCentral – providerCode: PRVAON databaseName: DOAJ Directory of Open Access Journals customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2288 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017836 issn: 1471-2288 databaseCode: DOA dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.doaj.org/ providerName: Directory of Open Access Journals – providerCode: PRVHPJ databaseName: ROAD: Directory of Open Access Scholarly Resources customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2288 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017836 issn: 1471-2288 databaseCode: M~E dateStart: 20010101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://road.issn.org providerName: ISSN International Centre – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Health & Medical Collection customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2288 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017836 issn: 1471-2288 databaseCode: 7X7 dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://search.proquest.com/healthcomplete providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: ProQuest Central customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2288 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017836 issn: 1471-2288 databaseCode: BENPR dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://www.proquest.com/central providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVPQU databaseName: Publicly Available Content Database customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2288 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017836 issn: 1471-2288 databaseCode: PIMPY dateStart: 20090101 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: http://search.proquest.com/publiccontent providerName: ProQuest – providerCode: PRVAVX databaseName: SpringerLINK Contemporary 1997-Present customDbUrl: eissn: 1471-2288 dateEnd: 99991231 omitProxy: false ssIdentifier: ssj0017836 issn: 1471-2288 databaseCode: RSV dateStart: 20011201 isFulltext: true titleUrlDefault: https://link.springer.com/search?facet-content-type=%22Journal%22 providerName: Springer Nature |
| link | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwrV1Lb9QwELagIMQF8SZQVkZCQgJFdR5-cWtRKzh0tWoBLSfLsR11pSqLmt3-gf5xZpxk2bQCLlyiJB5Ljv15PBOPvyHkrVK1LDnP8R-ARQclSysVdOq406WqXVCsiskm5HSq5nM920r1hTFhHT1w13F7XMjKalmzQtdlKL12hfVSwCpXFMHbGrUvk3pwpvr9Azyb0O9hZkrstRnSuoPbjAd2wKRko1UokvXfVMlba9L1eMlrm6ZxLTp6SB70RiTd7xr_iNwKzWNy77jfJn9Crk6h2nmgoBLATYV7isEX65Zux5hTv1xXIyGwX2mkm6VtzI4DYnTR0N9kz7TnLv1ILe1STw-q86bQU_Lt6PDrp89pn20hdaLMVmnBvHNOCy8q7kubSRek81worSrOvYPyTMEba30NNaoQFFIzW13WyiLN2zOy0yyb8IJQySzzlmU-RwdMVJX1Fsw8QEsWXHBlQtjQ-8b1VOSYEePcRJdECdMNmIEBMzhghiXk_abKz46H42_CBzikG0Gk0I4vAFimB5b5F7AS8g4BYXCiQ-Oc7c8rwCciZZbZ52BZ5kIJnpDdkSRMUDcqfjNAymARRrU1YbluDehSNKd0ATLPO4ht2lyA5VkwnSdEjsA3-qhxSbM4i_zggoPRWeiEfBhganrF1P65z17-jz57Re7ncZKJNFe7ZGd1sQ6vyV13uVq0FxNyW85lvKoJuXNwOJ2dTOK0hafZl-PZD3g6Of3-C-QGSgw |
| linkProvider | Directory of Open Access Journals |
| linkToHtml | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwnV1taxQxEB6kivrF95fVqhEEQVnct2QTv1WxVGwPoVX6LWSTrB6UPbm98w_4x53JZs9uq4J-OzaTY5ObmTxzM3kG4JmUbV1xXtB_AIYClDxtpFep5VZVsrVeZk1oNlHPZvL4WH2M97j7sdp9TEkGTx3MWopXfU7U7Bj60qUbhIUYp1-sqMsOheiHnzepA7qWENOXv502OYACT_95b3zqODpbKnkmXxqOod3r_7WAG3Atok62M6jJTbjgu1tw-SDm1W_Dj0P8ohPP0IdgXIufGVVrrHt2uiiducW6mQgh4GWBn5b1oZ0OirF5x36xQ7NIdvqaGTb0qh597XmhO_Bp993R2700tmdIrajyVVpmzlqrhBMNd5XJa-tr67iQSjacO4vjucQnxrgWZzTeS-JyNqpqpSFeuLuw1S06fx9YnZnMmSx3BUVsommMM4gLUb1yb72tEsjG30zbyF1OLTROdIhhpNDD5mrcXE2bq7MEXmymfBuIO_4m_IYUYSNInNvhwWL5RUcT1lzUjVF1m5WqrXzllC2NqwXirbL0zrQJPCc10uQZ8OWsiRcccInEsaV3OELRQkjBE9ieSKJF28nw01ERNQ1RGVznF-teo_Ml_KVKlLk3KObmnUuEqmWmigTqicpOFjUd6eZfA6G44IhSS5XAy1FxdfRk_Z_37ME_ST-BK3tHB_t6__3sw0O4WgQrEGkht2FrtVz7R3DJfl_N--XjYM0_AbPAScg |
| linkToPdf | http://cvtisr.summon.serialssolutions.com/2.0.0/link/0/eLvHCXMwpV1taxQxEA5SpfhF61tdbTWCIChLsy_JJn5rq4eiHsWq9FvIJlk9KHvl9s4_4B93Jps9u60K4rdjMzk2uZnJMzeTZwh5KmVTlZzn-B-AwQAlS2vpVWq5VaVsrJesDs0mqulUnpyoo9jntBuq3YeUZH-nAVma2uXemWt6E5dir8uQph3CYLyAAxARYvarJQQyWNP18fjLOo2AVxRiKvO300aHUeDsv-yZzx1NF8smL-ROw5E0ufnfi9kiNyIapfu9-twiV3x7m2x-iPn2O-THMXzpqafgWyDehc8UqzhWHT1frE7dfFWPhAAI08BbS7vQZgfE6Kylv1ijaSRBfUkN7XtYDz74stBd8nny-tPhmzS2bUitKLNlWjBnrVXCiZq70mSV9ZV1XEgla86dhfFMwhNjXAMzau8lcjwbVTbSIF_cPbLRzlt_n9CKGeYMy1yOkZyoa-MM4EVQu8xbb8uEsOH30zZymmNrjVMdYhspdL-5GjZX4-ZqlpDn6ylnPaHH34QPUCnWgsjFHR7MF191NG3NRVUbVTWsUE3pS6dsYVwlAIcVhXemScgzVCmNHgNezpp48QGWiNxbep8DRM2FFDwhOyNJsHQ7Gn4yKKXGISyPa_181WlwyojLVAEy272Srt-5AAhbMJUnpBqp72hR45F29i0QjQsO6LVQCXkxKLGOHq778549-Cfpx2Tz6NVEv387ffeQXM-DEYg0lztkY7lY-V1yzX5fzrrFo2DYPwFIPlKs |
| openUrl | ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info%3Aofi%2Fenc%3AUTF-8&rfr_id=info%3Asid%2Fsummon.serialssolutions.com&rft_val_fmt=info%3Aofi%2Ffmt%3Akev%3Amtx%3Ajournal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Single+screening+versus+conventional+double+screening+for+study+selection+in+systematic+reviews%3A+a+methodological+systematic+review&rft.jtitle=BMC+medical+research+methodology&rft.au=Waffenschmidt%2C+Siw&rft.au=Knelangen%2C+Marco&rft.au=Sieben%2C+Wiebke&rft.au=B%C3%BChn%2C+Stefanie&rft.date=2019-06-28&rft.issn=1471-2288&rft.eissn=1471-2288&rft.volume=19&rft.issue=1&rft.spage=132&rft_id=info:doi/10.1186%2Fs12874-019-0782-0&rft.externalDBID=NO_FULL_TEXT |
| thumbnail_l | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/lc.gif&issn=1471-2288&client=summon |
| thumbnail_m | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/mc.gif&issn=1471-2288&client=summon |
| thumbnail_s | http://covers-cdn.summon.serialssolutions.com/index.aspx?isbn=/sc.gif&issn=1471-2288&client=summon |