Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial

Ref ID	614
First Author	G. Gartlehner
Journal	JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Year Of Publishing	2020
URL	https://reader.elsevier.com/reader/sd/pii/S0895435619309825?token=1BED4860FE9AC40BA3FB1962ECBB4E1E34139060ECAB2874AB20F683941ADB7BFA8132D024A2184B91CC6E3D8164C23A
Keywords	• Author • General medical • Team • Single reviewer • Error • Missing data
Problem(s)	• Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Errors in study inclusion or omission of relevant studies
Number of systematic reviews included	2
Summary of Findings	The proportion of falsely excluded studies (i.e., false negative decisions) ranged from 0% to 36% for single-reviewer abstract screening and from 0% to 23% for dual-reviewer abstract screening
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results?	N/A
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study?	Yes