4
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Automated screening of research studies for systematic reviews using study characteristics

      research-article

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          Background

          Screening candidate studies for inclusion in a systematic review is time-consuming when conducted manually. Automation tools could reduce the human effort devoted to screening. Existing methods use supervised machine learning which train classifiers to identify relevant words in the abstracts of candidate articles that have previously been labelled by a human reviewer for inclusion or exclusion. Such classifiers typically reduce the number of abstracts requiring manual screening by about 50%.

          Methods

          We extracted four key characteristics of observational studies (population, exposure, confounders and outcomes) from the text of titles and abstracts for all articles retrieved using search strategies from systematic reviews. Our screening method excluded studies if they did not meet a predefined set of characteristics. The method was evaluated using three systematic reviews. Screening results were compared to the actual inclusion list of the reviews.

          Results

          The best screening threshold rule identified studies that mentioned both exposure (E) and outcome (O) in the study abstract. This screening rule excluded 93.7% of retrieved studies with a recall of 98%.

          Conclusions

          Filtering studies for inclusion in a systematic review based on the detection of key study characteristics in abstracts significantly outperformed standard approaches to automated screening and appears worthy of further development and evaluation.

          Related collections

          Most cited references8

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Outdoor Particulate Matter Exposure and Lung Cancer: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis

          Background: Particulate matter (PM) in outdoor air pollution was recently designated a Group I carcinogen by the International Agency for Research on Cancer (IARC). This determination was based on the evidence regarding the relationship of PM2.5 and PM10 to lung cancer risk; however, the IARC evaluation did not include a quantitative summary of the evidence. Objective: Our goal was to provide a systematic review and quantitative summary of the evidence regarding the relationship between PM and lung cancer. Methods: We conducted meta-analyses of studies examining the relationship of exposure to PM2.5 and PM10 with lung cancer incidence and mortality. In total, 18 studies met our inclusion criteria and provided the information necessary to estimate the change in lung cancer risk per 10-μg/m3 increase in exposure to PM. We used random-effects analyses to allow between-study variability to contribute to meta-estimates. Results: The meta-relative risk for lung cancer associated with PM2.5 was 1.09 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.14). The meta-relative risk of lung cancer associated with PM10 was similar, but less precise: 1.08 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.17). Estimates were robust to restriction to studies that considered potential confounders, as well as subanalyses by exposure assessment method. Analyses by smoking status showed that lung cancer risk associated with PM2.5 was greatest for former smokers [1.44 (95% CI: 1.04, 1.22)], followed by never-smokers [1.18 (95% CI: 1.00, 1.39)], and then current smokers [1.06 (95% CI: 0.97, 1.15)]. In addition, meta-estimates for adenocarcinoma associated with PM2.5 and PM10 were 1.40 (95% CI: 1.07, 1.83) and 1.29 (95% CI: 1.02, 1.63), respectively. Conclusion: The results of these analyses, and the decision of the IARC Working Group to classify PM and outdoor air pollution as carcinogenic (Group 1), further justify efforts to reduce exposures to air pollutants that can arise from many sources. Citation: Hamra GB, Guha N, Cohen A, Laden F, Raaschou-Nielsen O, Samet JM, Vineis P, Forastiere F, Saldiva P, Yorifuji T, Loomis D. 2014. Outdoor particulate matter exposure and lung cancer: a systematic review and meta-analysis. Environ Health Perspect 122:906–911; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1408092
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            The Navigation Guide—Evidence-Based Medicine Meets Environmental Health: Systematic Review of Human Evidence for PFOA Effects on Fetal Growth

            Background: The Navigation Guide methodology was developed to meet the need for a robust method of systematic and transparent research synthesis in environmental health science. We conducted a case study systematic review to support proof of concept of the method. Objective: We applied the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology to determine whether developmental exposure to perfluorooctanoic acid (PFOA) affects fetal growth in humans. Methods: We applied the first 3 steps of the Navigation Guide methodology to human epidemiological data: 1) specify the study question, 2) select the evidence, and 3) rate the quality and strength of the evidence. We developed a protocol, conducted a comprehensive search of the literature, and identified relevant studies using prespecified criteria. We evaluated each study for risk of bias and conducted meta-analyses on a subset of studies. We rated quality and strength of the entire body of human evidence. Results: We identified 18 human studies that met our inclusion criteria, and 9 of these were combined through meta-analysis. Through meta-analysis, we estimated that a 1-ng/mL increase in serum or plasma PFOA was associated with a –18.9 g (95% CI: –29.8, –7.9) difference in birth weight. We concluded that the risk of bias across studies was low, and we assigned a “moderate” quality rating to the overall body of human evidence. Conclusion: On the basis of this first application of the Navigation Guide systematic review methodology, we concluded that there is “sufficient” human evidence that developmental exposure to PFOA reduces fetal growth. Citation: Johnson PI, Sutton P, Atchley DS, Koustas E, Lam J, Sen S, Robinson KA, Axelrad DA, Woodruff TJ. 2014. The Navigation Guide—evidence-based medicine meets environmental health: systematic review of human evidence for PFOA effects on fetal growth. Environ Health Perspect 122:1028–1039; http://dx.doi.org/10.1289/ehp.1307893
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: found
              Is Open Access

              Systematic review automation technologies

              Systematic reviews, a cornerstone of evidence-based medicine, are not produced quickly enough to support clinical practice. The cost of production, availability of the requisite expertise and timeliness are often quoted as major contributors for the delay. This detailed survey of the state of the art of information systems designed to support or automate individual tasks in the systematic review, and in particular systematic reviews of randomized controlled clinical trials, reveals trends that see the convergence of several parallel research projects. We surveyed literature describing informatics systems that support or automate the processes of systematic review or each of the tasks of the systematic review. Several projects focus on automating, simplifying and/or streamlining specific tasks of the systematic review. Some tasks are already fully automated while others are still largely manual. In this review, we describe each task and the effect that its automation would have on the entire systematic review process, summarize the existing information system support for each task, and highlight where further research is needed for realizing automation for the task. Integration of the systems that automate systematic review tasks may lead to a revised systematic review workflow. We envisage the optimized workflow will lead to system in which each systematic review is described as a computer program that automatically retrieves relevant trials, appraises them, extracts and synthesizes data, evaluates the risk of bias, performs meta-analysis calculations, and produces a report in real time.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                guy.tsafnat@mq.edu.au
                pglaszio@bond.edu.au
                gkarystianis@kirby.unsw.edu.au
                enrico.coiera@mq.edu.au
                Journal
                Syst Rev
                Syst Rev
                Systematic Reviews
                BioMed Central (London )
                2046-4053
                25 April 2018
                25 April 2018
                2018
                : 7
                : 64
                Affiliations
                [1 ]ISNI 0000 0001 2158 5405, GRID grid.1004.5, Centre for Health Informatics, Australian Institute of Health Innovation, , Macquarie University, ; Sydney, Australia
                [2 ]ISNI 0000 0004 0405 3820, GRID grid.1033.1, Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, , Bond University, ; Gold Coast, Australia
                [3 ]ISNI 0000 0004 4902 0432, GRID grid.1005.4, Kirby Institute, , University of New South Wales, ; Sydney, Australia
                Author information
                http://orcid.org/0000-0003-4353-2026
                Article
                724
                10.1186/s13643-018-0724-7
                5918752
                29695296
                d396fa9f-6895-4d2a-b40f-fa8cc12dadd4
                © The Author(s). 2018

                Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 22 October 2017
                : 29 March 2018
                Funding
                Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/100000066, National Institute of Environmental Health Sciences;
                Categories
                Research
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2018

                Public health
                automation of systematic reviews,evidence screening,study selection,study characterisation

                Comments

                Comment on this article