Carolyn R T Stoll1, Sonya Izadi1, Susan Fowler2, Paige Green3, Jerry Suls3, Graham A Colditz1. 1. Division of Public Health Sciences, Department of Surgery, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA. 2. Brown School, Washington University School of Medicine, Saint Louis, Missouri, USA. 3. Behavioral Research Program, Division of Cancer Control and Population Sciences, National Cancer Institute, Bethesda, Maryland, USA.
Abstract
BACKGROUND: 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 second reviewer. This study compared the use of a complete dual review approach, with two reviewers in both the title/abstract screening stage and the full-text screening stage, as compared with a limited dual review approach, with two reviewers only in the full-text stage. METHODS: This study was performed within the context of a large systematic review. Two reviewers performed a complete dual review of 15 000 search results and a limited dual review of 15 000 search results. The number of relevant studies mistakenly excluded by highly experienced reviewers in the complete dual review was compared with the number mistakenly excluded during the full-text stage of the limited dual review. RESULTS: In the complete dual review approach, an additional 6.6% to 9.1% of eligible studies were identified during the title/abstract stage by using two reviewers, and an additional 6.6% to 11.9% of eligible studies were identified during the full-text stage by using two reviewers. In the limited dual review approach, an additional 4.4% to 5.3% of eligible studies were identified with the use of two reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Using a second reviewer throughout the entire study screening process can increase the number of relevant studies identified for use in a systematic review. Systematic review performers should consider using a complete dual review process to ensure all relevant studies are included in their review.
BACKGROUND: 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 second reviewer. This study compared the use of a complete dual review approach, with two reviewers in both the title/abstract screening stage and the full-text screening stage, as compared with a limited dual review approach, with two reviewers only in the full-text stage. METHODS: This study was performed within the context of a large systematic review. Two reviewers performed a complete dual review of 15 000 search results and a limited dual review of 15 000 search results. The number of relevant studies mistakenly excluded by highly experienced reviewers in the complete dual review was compared with the number mistakenly excluded during the full-text stage of the limited dual review. RESULTS: In the complete dual review approach, an additional 6.6% to 9.1% of eligible studies were identified during the title/abstract stage by using two reviewers, and an additional 6.6% to 11.9% of eligible studies were identified during the full-text stage by using two reviewers. In the limited dual review approach, an additional 4.4% to 5.3% of eligible studies were identified with the use of two reviewers. CONCLUSIONS: Using a second reviewer throughout the entire study screening process can increase the number of relevant studies identified for use in a systematic review. Systematic review performers should consider using a complete dual review process to ensure all relevant studies are included in their review.
Authors: Phil Edwards; Mike Clarke; Carolyn DiGuiseppi; Sarah Pratap; Ian Roberts; Reinhard Wentz Journal: Stat Med Date: 2002-06-15 Impact factor: 2.373
Authors: Carolyn R T Stoll; Sonya Izadi; Susan Fowler; Sydney Philpott-Streiff; Paige Green; Jerry Suls; Anke C Winter; Graham A Colditz Journal: Health Psychol Date: 2019-05-02 Impact factor: 4.267
Authors: Byron C Wallace; Kevin Small; Carla E Brodley; Joseph Lau; Christopher H Schmid; Lars Bertram; Christina M Lill; Joshua T Cohen; Thomas A Trikalinos Journal: Genet Med Date: 2012-07 Impact factor: 8.822
Authors: Piotr Przybyła; Austin J Brockmeier; Georgios Kontonatsios; Marie-Annick Le Pogam; John McNaught; Erik von Elm; Kay Nolan; Sophia Ananiadou Journal: Res Synth Methods Date: 2018-07-30 Impact factor: 5.273
Authors: Roberto Rafael Cruz-Martínez; Jobke Wentzel; Rikke Aune Asbjørnsen; Peter Daniel Noort; Johan Magnus van Niekerk; Robbert Sanderman; Julia Ewc van Gemert-Pijnen Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-05-21 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Yu Heng Kwan; Si Dun Weng; Dionne Hui Fang Loh; Truls Østbye; Lian Leng Low; Hayden Barry Bosworth; Julian Thumboo; Jie Kie Phang; Livia Jia Yi Oo; Dan V Blalock; Eng Hui Chew; Kai Zhen Yap; Corrinne Yong Koon Tan; Sungwon Yoon; Warren Fong Journal: J Med Internet Res Date: 2020-10-09 Impact factor: 5.428
Authors: Amal Fakha; Lindsay Groenvynck; Bram de Boer; Theo van Achterberg; Jan Hamers; Hilde Verbeek Journal: Implement Sci Date: 2021-02-26 Impact factor: 7.327