- Framework of problems / Objective
- Single reviewer / lack of double checking
- 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 Missing data Error General medical Team Single reviewer |
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? | Not Applicable |
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |