Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count
Published 2021 View Full Article
- Home
- Publications
- Publication Search
- Publication Details
Title
Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count
Authors
Keywords
-
Journal
Systematic Reviews
Volume 10, Issue 1, Pages -
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Online
2021-04-05
DOI
10.1186/s13643-021-01632-6
References
Ask authors/readers for more resources
Related references
Note: Only part of the references are listed.- Coronavirus Infections—More Than Just the Common Cold
- (2020) Catharine I. Paules et al. JAMA-JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL ASSOCIATION
- Quality Control for Crowdsourcing Citation Screening: The Importance of Assessment Number and Qualification Set Size.
- (2020) Nassr Nama et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study
- (2020) Justin Clark et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- The semi-automation of title and abstract screening: a retrospective exploration of ways to leverage Abstrackr’s relevance predictions in systematic and rapid reviews
- (2020) Allison Gates et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology
- Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps
- (2020) Andrea C. Tricco et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review
- (2019) Siw Waffenschmidt et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology
- The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews
- (2019) Carolyn R.T. Stoll et al. Research Synthesis Methods
- Flaws in the application and interpretation of statistical analyses in systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions were common: a cross-sectional analysis
- (2018) Matthew J. Page et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Automatic extraction of quantitative data from ClinicalTrials.gov to conduct meta-analyses
- (2018) Richeek Pradhan et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study
- (2018) Iain Marshall et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Few studies exist examining methods for selecting studies, abstracting data, and appraising quality in a systematic review
- (2018) Reid C. Robson et al. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
- Identifying reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) via a hybrid machine learning and crowdsourcing approach
- (2017) Byron C Wallace et al. JOURNAL OF THE AMERICAN MEDICAL INFORMATICS ASSOCIATION
- Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry
- (2017) Rohit Borah et al. BMJ Open
- An exploration of crowdsourcing citation screening for systematic reviews
- (2017) Michael L. Mortensen et al. Research Synthesis Methods
- Using Crowdsourcing to Evaluate Published Scientific Literature: Methods and Example
- (2014) Andrew W. Brown et al. PLoS One
Create your own webinar
Interested in hosting your own webinar? Check the schedule and propose your idea to the Peeref Content Team.
Create NowBecome a Peeref-certified reviewer
The Peeref Institute provides free reviewer training that teaches the core competencies of the academic peer review process.
Get Started