This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.
Both sides previous revision Previous revision Next revision | Previous revision Last revision Both sides next revision | ||
wiki:guide:research:screen [2022/05/16 18:45] tiffany [Should You Exclude Follow-up (or Post-Hoc) Studies?] |
wiki:guide:research:screen [2022/05/17 02:00] tiffany |
||
---|---|---|---|
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:// |
---- | ---- | ||
Line 23: | Line 28: | ||
===== Should You Exclude Follow-up Studies? ===== | ===== 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:// |
---- | ---- |