Differences

This shows you the differences between two versions of the page.

--- wiki:guide:research:screen [2022/05/16 18:50]
tiffany
+++ wiki:guide:research:screen [2022/08/11 20:06] (current)
kevinkallmes
@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
-====== Screening Your References (Study Selection) ======
+====== Selecting Your Studies (Screening) ======
 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 =====
-Exclusion criteria should be determined before screening begins. Common exclusion criteria include publication prior to a specific date, articles not written in English, the wrong type of article (meta-analysis/systematic review, editorial, correspondence, letter to the editor, abstracts), the wrong type of study (in vitro and in vivo studies, retrospective study, cohort study, case series, case study), and too few patients (for example, fewer than 10).
+Exclusion criteria should be determined before screening begins. Common exclusion reasons include the following:
+  * Publications prior to a specific date (for instance, January 1, 2000)
+  * Articles not written in English
+  * The wrong type of article (meta-analysis/systematic review, editorial, correspondence, letter to the editor, abstracts, protocol)
+  * 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 the following: incorrect target population for the study, an intervention of interest that was not performed at the time of interest, single-arm (no comparator) studies, and no reporting of outcomes of interest.
+Additional exclusion criteria often relate to [[https://wiki.nested-knowledge.com/doku.php?id=wiki:autolit:search:optimize|PICO]]. The study under consideration may involve the wrong population, interventions, comparators, and outcomes.
 ----
@@ 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.
+See the visual here for an overview of where to find screening-related information in underlying studies:
+{{:wiki:guide:research:screenshot_2022-08-11_150554.png|}}
 ----
 ===== 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 (or post-hoc) studies. However, there are times when the follow-up study is more relevant than the primary study. As long as you are only collecting data on each patient once, the follow-up study should be included.
 ----
 ===== Is Dual Screening Necessary? =====
-Dual screening is a process where two reviewers independently screen the search results making decisions about whether to include or exclude articles. Discrepancies are usually discussed before a final decision is made. Although this may take more time, the advantage is greater accuracy.<sup> 1 2 3 </sup>
+Dual screening is a process where two reviewers independently screen the search results to make decisions about whether to include or exclude articles. Discrepancies are usually discussed before a final decision is made. Although dual screening may take more time, several studies have documented its advantage.<sup> 1 2 3 </sup>
-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%.<sup>1 </sup>   Another analysis found a total reviewer error rate (false inclusion and false exclusion) of 10.76%.<sup>2</sup>
+One study showed that single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13% of relevant studies, while dual-reviewer screening missed only 3%.<sup>1 </sup>   Another analysis found a total reviewer error rate (false inclusion and false exclusion) of 10.76%.<sup>2</sup> The choice of whether to dual-screen or not should be discussed by the team.
 [[https://blog.evidencepartners.com/dual-screening-in-your-systematic-review-process-is-it-worth-the-time|This article]] provides some alternatives to dual screening.

Nested Knowledge

User Tools

Site Tools

Differences

Page Tools