Validation of semi-automatic citation screening software for creating clinical practice guidelines
Oami, T.; Okada, Y.; Fukuda, T.; Sakuraya, M.; Nakada, T.-a.; Shime, N.
Show abstract
BackgroundThis study aims to investigate the quality of the literature search and workload saving using the semi-automatic software for citation screening in the development of the Japanese Clinical Practice Guidelines for Management of Sepsis and Septic Shock (J-SSCG). MethodsWe will conduct a prospective study to compare the efficiency of citation screening between the conventional method using Rayyan and semi-automatic citation screening using ASReview. The two independent reviewers will conduct literature searches for clinical questions. During the session, we objectively measure the time to accomplish the citation screening. After the citation screening, we will calculate the sensitivity and specificity from the results of the conventional and semi-automatic procedures. Also, we will compare the accumulated time between the two methods. Trial registrationThis research is submitted with the University hospital medical information network clinical trial registry (UMIN-CTR) [UMIN000049366]. Conflicts of interestAll authors declare no conflicts of interest to have. FundingNone
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- GPT for RCTs?: Using AI to measure adherence to reporting guidelines 95%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 95%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- COVID-19-related research data availability and quality according to the FAIR principles: A meta-research study 95%
- An interactive retrieval system for clinical trial studies with context-dependent protocol elements 94%
- Introducing the EMPIRE Index: A novel, value-based metric framework to measure the impact of medical publications 93%
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Catchii: empowering literature review screening in healthcare 96%
- Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision-making: to what extent could the evidence be reliable? 95%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.