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