Journal of epidemiology · 2024
Efficiency and Workload Reduction of Semi-automated Citation Screening Software for Creating Clinical Practice Guidelines: A Prospective Observational Study.
СтатьяНаблюдательное исследованиеПоддержка исследования: вне правительства СШАНазвание и аннотация: Перевод в очереди
Обработка статьи · этапы, ошибки и управление
Загрузка состояния…
Ошибки и ограничения
История · было → стало
Состояние обновляется каждые 5 секунд, пока блок открыт. Процент показывается только там, где известен объём работы. Пауза останавливает продолжение этапа; текущий запрос к источнику может завершиться.
Oami Takehiko, Okada Yohei, Sakuraya Masaaki, Fukuda Tatsuma, Shime Nobuaki, Nakada Taka-Aki
Аннотация
BACKGROUND: We evaluated the applicability of automated citation screening in developing clinical practice guidelines.
METHODS: We prospectively compared the efficiency of citation screening between the conventional (Rayyan) and semi-automated (ASReview software) methods. We searched the literature for five clinical questions (CQs) in the development of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock. Objective measurements of the time required to complete citation screening were recorded. Following the first screening round, in the primary analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and overall screening time were calculated for both procedures using the semi-automated tool as index and the results of the conventional method as standard reference. In the secondary analysis, the same parameters were compared between the two procedures using the final list of included studies after the second screening session as standard reference.
RESULTS: Among the five CQs after the first screening session, the highest and lowest sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were 0.241 and 0.795; 0.991 and 1.000; and 0.482 and 0.929, respectively. In the secondary analysis, the highest sensitivity and specificity in the semi-automated citation screening were 1.000 and 0.997, respectively. The overall screening time per 100 studies was significantly shorter with semi-automated than with conventional citation screening.
CONCLUSION: The potential advantages of the semi-automated method (shorter screening time and higher discriminatory rate for the final list of studies) warrant further validation.
METHODS: We prospectively compared the efficiency of citation screening between the conventional (Rayyan) and semi-automated (ASReview software) methods. We searched the literature for five clinical questions (CQs) in the development of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for the Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock. Objective measurements of the time required to complete citation screening were recorded. Following the first screening round, in the primary analysis, the sensitivity, specificity, positive predictive value, and overall screening time were calculated for both procedures using the semi-automated tool as index and the results of the conventional method as standard reference. In the secondary analysis, the same parameters were compared between the two procedures using the final list of included studies after the second screening session as standard reference.
RESULTS: Among the five CQs after the first screening session, the highest and lowest sensitivity, specificity, and positive predictive values were 0.241 and 0.795; 0.991 and 1.000; and 0.482 and 0.929, respectively. In the secondary analysis, the highest sensitivity and specificity in the semi-automated citation screening were 1.000 and 0.997, respectively. The overall screening time per 100 studies was significantly shorter with semi-automated than with conventional citation screening.
CONCLUSION: The potential advantages of the semi-automated method (shorter screening time and higher discriminatory rate for the final list of studies) warrant further validation.