Topics

Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews.

07:00 EST 14th January 2020 | BioPortfolio

Summary of "Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews."

Automated approaches to improve the efficiency of systematic reviews are greatly needed. When testing any of these approaches, the criterion standard of comparison (gold standard) is usually human reviewers. Yet, human reviewers make errors in inclusion and exclusion of references.

Affiliation

Journal Details

This article was published in the following journal.

Name: PloS one
ISSN: 1932-6203
Pages: e0227742

Links

DeepDyve research library

PubMed Articles [24402 Associated PubMed Articles listed on BioPortfolio]

The Value of a Second Reviewer for Study Selection in Systematic Reviews.

Although dual independent review of search results by two reviewers is generally recommended for systematic reviews, there are not consistent recommendations regarding the timing of the use of the sec...

Barriers of colorectal cancer screening in rural USA: a systematic review.

Colorectal cancer (CRC) screening rates are lower in rural areas in the USA. To guide the design of interventions to improve CRC screening, a systematic review was conducted to identify CRC screening ...

General concepts in biostatistics and clinical epidemiology: Random error and systematic error.

Biomedical research, particularly when it involves human beings, is always subjected to sources of error that must be recognized. Systematic error or bias is associated with problems in the methodolog...

Preventive Cancer Screening Among Resettled Refugee Women from Muslim-Majority Countries: A Systematic Review.

As refugee populations continue to age in the United States, there is a need to prioritize screening for chronic illnesses, including cancer, and to characterize how social and cultural contexts influ...

A Systematic Review on the epidemiology of Normal Pressure Hydrocephalus.

The aim of this systematic review is to gather all available studies reporting prevalence and incidence rates of iNPH and to assess their methodological quality and consistency. All available studies ...

Clinical Trials [9634 Associated Clinical Trials listed on BioPortfolio]

Impact of a Limitation Section on the Meta-analysis Results' Interpretation

Objective: The investigators aim to evaluate the impact of a " limitations " section in systematic review's abstract on results' interpretation by readers. Design: Randomized ratio 1:1 c...

a Multifaceted Program for Improving Quality of Care in ICU

Medical errors that affect patient safety have generated huge concern since the publication of "To Err Is Human" 6 years ago [1]. Given the complexity of management in the intensive care u...

Program of Screening, Prevention and Elimination of Hepatitis C in Penitentiary Institutions in Cantabria (JAILFREE-C)

The objectives of this study are: 1. To perform a systematic screening and evaluation of the prevalence of infection by hepatitis C virus (HCV), hepatitis B virus (HBV) and human i...

Early and Systematic Screening in Chronic Neuropathy

TTR-FAP is a rare disabling inherited disorder that predominantly affects the peripheral nervous system and the heart. Due to an important phenotypic and genetic heterogeneity, the diagnos...

Community Members as Reviewers of Medical Journal Manuscripts

Manuscripts submitted to medical journals are typically reviewed by physicians or researchers, with no input from patients or other community members. However, involvement of community mem...

Medical and Biotech [MESH] Definitions

The introduction of error due to systematic differences in the characteristics between those selected and those not selected for a given study. In sampling bias, error is the result of failure to ensure that all members of the reference population have a known chance of selection in the sample.

Any deviation of results or inferences from the truth, or processes leading to such deviation. Bias can result from several sources: one-sided or systematic variations in measurement from the true value (systematic error); flaws in study design; deviation of inferences, interpretations, or analyses based on flawed data or data collection; etc. There is no sense of prejudice or subjectivity implied in the assessment of bias under these conditions.

Any deviation of results or inferences from the truth, or processes leading to such deviation. Bias can result from several sources: one-sided or systematic variations in measurement from the true value (systematic error); flaws in study design; deviation of inferences, interpretations, or analyses based on flawed data or data collection; etc. There is no sense of prejudice or subjectivity implied in the assessment of bias under these conditions.

The identification of selected parameters in newborn infants by various tests, examinations, or other procedures. Screening may be performed by clinical or laboratory measures. A screening test is designed to sort out healthy neonates (INFANT, NEWBORN) from those not well, but the screening test is not intended as a diagnostic device, rather instead as epidemiologic.

The probability distribution associated with two mutually exclusive outcomes; used to model cumulative incidence rates and prevalence rates. The Bernoulli distribution is a special case of binomial distribution.

Quick Search


DeepDyve research library

Searches Linking to this Article