Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd -based, randomized controlled trial
Open Access
- 1 May 2020
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Elsevier BV in Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Vol. 121, 20-28
- https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.005
Abstract
No abstract availableFunding Information
- Cochrane to the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group
This publication has 14 references indexed in Scilit:
- AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or bothBMJ, 2017
- Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international surveyBMC Medical Research Methodology, 2017
- Comparative Benefits and Harms of Antidepressant, Psychological, Complementary, and Exercise Treatments for Major DepressionAnnals of Internal Medicine, 2016
- Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the efficiency of study identification methods in systematic reviewsSystematic Reviews, 2016
- Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri‐food public healthResearch Synthesis Methods, 2016
- A scoping review of rapid review methodsBMC Medicine, 2015
- ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developedJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2015
- Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approachSystematic Reviews, 2012
- Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstractJournal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2005
- Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening recordsStatistics in Medicine, 2002