SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Crowdsourcing the Citation Screening Process for Systematic Reviews: Validation Study
13 references·10 citing·49 second hop
Crowdsourcing the Citation Screening Process for Systematic Reviews: Validation Study (2019)Crowdsourcing the Citation Screening Proc…Machine learning algorithms for systematic review: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error (2019)Machine learning algorithms f…Identifying reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) via a hybrid machine learning and crowdsourcing approach (2017)Identifying reports of random…An exploration of crowdsourcing citation screening for systematic reviews (2017)An exploration of crowdsourci…Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer (2016)Wasted research when systemat…Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)Using text mining for study i…STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies (2015)STARD 2015: an updated list o…How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously? (2015)How to conduct systematic rev…Erratum to: Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)Erratum to: Using text mining…Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleve…A new algorithm for reducing the workload of experts in performing systematic reviews (2010)A new algorithm for reducing …How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis (2007)How Quickly Do Systematic Rev…Reducing Workload in Systematic Review Preparation Using Automated Citation Classification (2005)Reducing Workload in Systemat…Estimating Time to Conduct a Meta-analysis From Number of Citations Retrieved (1999)Estimating Time to Conduct a …ASReview LAB v.2: Open-source text screening with multiple agents and a crowd of experts (2025)ASReview LAB v.2: Open-source…Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence (2024)Rapid review: A review of met…Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews (2024)Automation tools to support u…What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies (2023)What are the best methods for…Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count (2021)Successful incorporation of s…Evaluating the relationship between citation set size, team size and screening methods used in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study (2021)Evaluating the relationship b…Crowdsourcing citation-screening in a mixed-studies systematic review: a feasibility study (2021)Crowdsourcing citation-screen…Quality control for crowdsourcing citation screening: the importance of assessment number and qualification set size (2020)Quality control for crowdsour…Identification and Evaluation of Controlled Trials in Pediatric Cardiology: Crowdsourced Scoping Review and Creation of Accessible Searchable Database (2020)Identification and Evaluation…A Workflow-Based Methodological Framework for Hybrid Human-AI Enabled Scientometrics (2020)A Workflow-Based Methodologic…The American Heritage Word Frequency Book (1973)Developing Optimal Search Strategies for Detecting Clinically Sound Studies in MEDLINE (1994)Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews (2010)Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review (2015)Discrepancies between Meta-Analyses and Subsequent Large Randomized, Controlled Trials (1997)Randomized, Controlled Trials, Observational Studies, and the Hierarchy of Research Designs (2000)Contradicted and Initially Stronger Effects in Highly Cited Clinical Research (2005)Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap (2014)Systematic review automation technologies (2014)Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how (2017)The Promise and Problems of Meta-Analysis (1997)META‐ANALYSIS OF MFT INTERVENTIONS (2003)The process of systematic review and its application in agri-food public-health (2006)Systematic literature reviews in software engineering—enhancement of the study selection process using Cohen’s Kappa statistic (2020)Meta-Analyses of Randomized Controlled Trials (1987)Meta-Analysis in Clinical Research (1987)Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence (2009)Problematic smartphone use: A conceptual overview and systematic review of relations with anxiety and depression psychopathology (2016)The COMET Handbook: version 1.0 (2017)Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews (2021)Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews (1994)An Introduction to Systematic Reviews (2013)Evidence & Gap Maps: A tool for promoting evidence informed policy and strategic research agendas (2016)Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort (2017)The value of a second reviewer for study selection in systematic reviews (2019)Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews (2007)A GRADE Working Group approach for rating the quality of treatment effect estimates from network meta-analysis (2014)The PRISMA Extension Statement for Reporting of Systematic Reviews Incorporating Network Meta-analyses of Health Care Interventions: Checklist and Explanations (2015)Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: A paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews? (2016)Mass Production of Systematic Reviews and Meta‐analyses: An Exercise in Mega‐silliness? (2016)Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study (2018)The Cochrane Collaboration: Preparing, Maintaining, and Disseminating Systematic Reviews of the Effects of Health Care (1993)Development of a search filter to identify reports of controlled clinical trials within CINAHL Plus (2019)Trialstreamer: A living, automatically updated database of clinical trial reports (2020)Machine learning computational tools to assist the performance of systematic reviews: A mapping review (2022)Growth rates of modern science: A bibliometric analysis based on the number of publications and cited references (2015)Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry (2017)Statistical stopping criteria for automated screening in systematic reviews (2020)Artificial intelligence to automate the systematic review of scientific literature (2023)Unveiling the dynamics of AI applications: A review of reviews using scientometrics and BERTopic modeling (2024)Guidelines for the Process of Cross-Cultural Adaptation of Self-Report Measures (2000)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)STARD 2015 guidelines for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies: explanation and elaboration (2016)Updating guidance for reporting systematic reviews: development of the PRISMA 2020 statement (2021)Consolidated Health Economic Evaluation Reporting Standards (CHEERS) 2022 Explanation and Elaboration: A Report of the ISPOR CHEERS II Good Practices Task Force (2022)Searching for and selecting studies (2019)Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review (2019)Toward systematic review automation: a practical guide to using machine learning tools in research synthesis (2019)
this work references cited by second hop

References

  • 2015STARD 2015: an updated list of essential items for reporting diagnostic accuracy studies3,623 cited
  • 2010Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up?1,185 cited
  • 2007How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis837 cited
  • 2015Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches680 cited
  • 2005Reducing Workload in Systematic Review Preparation Using Automated Citation Classification410 cited
  • 2015Erratum to: Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches353 cited
  • 2017Identifying reports of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) via a hybrid machine learning and crowdsourcing approach186 cited
  • 2019Machine learning algorithms for systematic review: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error185 cited
  • 1999Estimating Time to Conduct a Meta-analysis From Number of Citations Retrieved163 cited
  • 2016Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer125 cited
  • 2015How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously?104 cited
  • 2010A new algorithm for reducing the workload of experts in performing systematic reviews100 cited
  • 2017An exploration of crowdsourcing citation screening for systematic reviews

Only edges whose both ends are imported exist here. Widen the year window, or show the whole map. Back to the work

76 cited

Cited by

  • 2023What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies45 cited
  • 2021Successful incorporation of single reviewer assessments during systematic review screening: development and validation of sensitivity and work-saved of an algorithm that considers exclusion criteria and count43 cited
  • 2024Automation tools to support undertaking scoping reviews43 cited
  • 2020Quality control for crowdsourcing citation screening: the importance of assessment number and qualification set size30 cited
  • 2025ASReview LAB v.2: Open-source text screening with multiple agents and a crowd of experts20 cited
  • 2021Evaluating the relationship between citation set size, team size and screening methods used in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study14 cited
  • 2020Identification and Evaluation of Controlled Trials in Pediatric Cardiology: Crowdsourced Scoping Review and Creation of Accessible Searchable Database14 cited
  • 2021Crowdsourcing citation-screening in a mixed-studies systematic review: a feasibility study11 cited
  • 2020A Workflow-Based Methodological Framework for Hybrid Human-AI Enabled Scientometrics8 cited
  • 2024Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence8 cited