期刊
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS
卷 5, 期 1, 页码 31-49出版社
WILEY
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1093
关键词
text mining; scoping review methods; systematic review methods; study selection
资金
- UK Department of Health Policy Research Programme [107/0001]
- Department of Children and Health, Institute of Education, UK
- ESRC [ES/G007462/1] Funding Source: UKRI
- MRC [MR/J005037/1, MR/K023187/1, MC_UP_1001/1, MC_UU_12015/6] Funding Source: UKRI
- Economic and Social Research Council [ES/G007462/1] Funding Source: researchfish
- Medical Research Council [MR/J005037/1, MR/K023187/1, MC_UU_12015/6, MC_UP_1001/1] Funding Source: researchfish
In scoping reviews, boundaries of relevant evidence may be initially fuzzy, with refined conceptual understanding of interventions and their proposed mechanisms of action an intended output of the scoping process rather than its starting point. Electronic searches are therefore sensitive, often retrieving very large record sets that are impractical to screen in their entirety. This paper describes methods for applying and evaluating the use of text mining (TM) technologies to reduce impractical screening workload in reviews, using examples of two extremely large-scale scoping reviews of public health evidence (choice architecture (CA) and economic environment (EE)). Electronic searches retrieved >800,000 (CA) and >1 million (EE) records. TM technologies were used to prioritise records for manual screening. TM performance was measured prospectively. TM reduced manual screening workload by 90% (CA) and 88% (EE) compared with conventional screening (absolute reductions of approximate to 430 000 (CA) and approximate to 378 000 (EE) records). This study expands an emerging corpus of empirical evidence for the use of TM to expedite study selection in reviews. By reducing screening workload to manageable levels, TM made it possible to assemble and configure large, complex evidence bases that crossed research discipline boundaries. These methods are transferable to other scoping and systematic reviews incorporating conceptual development or explanatory dimensions. (C) 2013 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.
作者
我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。
推荐
暂无数据