This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision | ||
wiki:guide:research:screen [2022/05/11 17:15] tiffany [Selecting Exclusion Criteria] |
wiki:guide:research:screen [2022/08/11 20:06] kevinkallmes |
||
---|---|---|---|
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
- | ====== | + | ====== |
After running your search through one or more databases, the next step is to screen through the results to decide which studies you want to include. | After running your search through one or more databases, the next step is to screen through the results to decide which studies you want to include. | ||
Line 5: | Line 5: | ||
===== Selecting Exclusion Criteria ===== | ===== Selecting Exclusion Criteria ===== | ||
- | Exclusion criteria should be determined before screening begins. Common exclusion | + | Exclusion criteria should be determined before screening begins. Common exclusion |
+ | * Publications | ||
+ | * Articles | ||
+ | * The wrong type of article (meta-analysis/ | ||
+ | * The wrong type of study (in vitro and in vivo studies, retrospective study, cohort study, case series, case study) | ||
+ | * Too few patients (for example, fewer than 10). | ||
- | Additional exclusion criteria often relate to PICO. Examples include | + | Additional exclusion criteria often relate to [[https:// |
---- | ---- | ||
===== Screening Steps ===== | ===== Screening Steps ===== | ||
- | * Before going through each study, begin by removing any duplicates with the Nested Knowledge software. | + | * Before going through each study, begin by removing any duplicates with the [[https:// |
* When reading the title and abstract to determine whether a study should be included, check each of the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the elements of PICO. If there are not enough details in the abstract, mark this study for full-text review. For studies that don’t meet the inclusion criteria, mark them as excluded and note the reason they were excluded. Be sure to note any recurring exclusion reasons that were not determined beforehand. | * When reading the title and abstract to determine whether a study should be included, check each of the inclusion and exclusion criteria and the elements of PICO. If there are not enough details in the abstract, mark this study for full-text review. For studies that don’t meet the inclusion criteria, mark them as excluded and note the reason they were excluded. Be sure to note any recurring exclusion reasons that were not determined beforehand. | ||
Line 19: | Line 24: | ||
* When looking through a PDF of a study, use “Ctrl F” to find specific words or phrases to quickly locate the elements of PICO to quickly find essential information. The remaining included studies will go on to have their data tagged and extracted for analysis. | * When looking through a PDF of a study, use “Ctrl F” to find specific words or phrases to quickly locate the elements of PICO to quickly find essential information. The remaining included studies will go on to have their data tagged and extracted for analysis. | ||
+ | |||
+ | See the visual here for an overview of where to find screening-related information in underlying studies: | ||
+ | {{: | ||
---- | ---- | ||
- | ===== Should You Exclude Follow-up | + | ===== Should You Exclude Follow-up Studies? ===== |
- | It is generally better to include the primary study over post-hoc and follow-up studies. However, there are times when the post-hoc study is more relevant than the primary study. As long as you are only collecting data on each patient once, the follow-up study may be included. | + | It is generally better to include the primary study over follow-up |
---- | ---- | ||
- | |||
===== Is Dual Screening Necessary? ===== | ===== Is Dual Screening Necessary? ===== | ||
- | Dual screening is a process where two reviewers independently screen the search results | + | Dual screening is a process where two reviewers independently screen the search results |
- | The choice of whether to dual-screen or not should be discussed by the team. One study showed that single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13% of relevant studies, while dual-reviewer screening missed 3%.< | + | One study showed that single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13% of relevant studies, while dual-reviewer screening missed |
- | The level of experience of the reviewer can help determine whether dual screening is necessary. A study by Waffenschmidt et al. found that the median proportion of missed studies that would have been included by two independent reviewers reaching consensus was 3% (range: 0 to 21%) for experienced reviewers and 13% for less experienced reviewers (range: 0 to 58%). A clearly defined research question is helpful in reducing the number of missed studies.< | + | [[https:// |
---- | ---- |