SZodixStudyAcademic Library
ShelvesOpen access
Study · an open academic library·Metadata from OpenAlex (CC0)·Shelves·OpenAlex metadata, de-duplicated
Increasing the efficiency of study selection for systematic reviews using prioritization tools and a single-screening approach
15 references·4 citing·42 second hop
Increasing the efficiency of study selection for systematic reviews using prioritization tools and a single-screening approach (2023)Increasing the efficiency of study select…Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review (2021)Resource use during systemati…Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial (2020)Single-reviewer abstract scre…Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane Reviews (2020)Machine learning reduced work…Machine learning for screening prioritization in systematic reviews: comparative performance of Abstrackr and EPPI-Reviewer (2020)Machine learning for screenin…Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review (2019)Single screening versus conve…Assessing the accuracy of machine-assisted abstract screening with DistillerAI: a user study (2019)Assessing the accuracy of mac…Technology-assisted title and abstract screening for systematic reviews: a retrospective evaluation of the Abstrackr machine learning tool (2018)Technology-assisted title and…Can abstract screening workload be reduced using text mining? User experiences of the tool Rayyan (2017)Can abstract screening worklo…Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the efficiency of study identification methods in systematic reviews (2016)Use of cost-effectiveness ana…Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews (2016)Rayyan—a web and mobile app f…Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri‐food public health (2016)Implications of applying meth…Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)Using text mining for study i…Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers (2015)Faster title and abstract scr…Erratum to: Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches (2015)Erratum to: Using text mining…Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future? (2013)Methodological developments i…Artificial Intelligence in Literature Review Synthesis: A Step-by-Step Methodological Approach for Researchers and Academics (2026)Artificial Intelligence in Li…Exploring the use of LLMs for the selection phase in systematic literature studies (2025)Exploring the use of LLMs for…Digital Tools to Support the Systematic Review Process: An Introduction (2025)Digital Tools to Support the …AI tools for systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses in educational psychology: An overview and a practical guide (2025)AI tools for systematic liter…Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement (2009)Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement. (2009)The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials (2011)Machine learning algorithms for systematic review: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error (2019)SWIFT-Active Screener: Accelerated document screening through active learning and integrated recall estimation (2020)Abstract screening using the automated tool Rayyan: results of effectiveness in three diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews (2022)The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration (2009)Citation searches are more sensitive than keyword searches to identify studies using specific measurement instruments (2014)Impact of librarians on reporting of the literature searching component of pediatric systematic reviews (2016)Improving reference prioritisation with PICO recognition (2019)Systematic Reviews: Rationale for systematic reviews (1994)Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? (2010)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)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Prioritising references for systematic reviews with RobotAnalyst: A user study (2018)An evaluation of DistillerSR’s machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening – impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes (2020)Parental Risk and Protective Factors in Child Maltreatment: A Systematic Review of the Evidence (2022)Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement (2009)Digital Mental Health Interventions for Depression, Anxiety, and Enhancement of Psychological Well-Being Among College Students: Systematic Review (2019)An open source machine learning framework for efficient and transparent systematic reviews (2021)Barriers to and Facilitators of User Engagement With Digital Mental Health Interventions: Systematic Review (2021)Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews (2013)Eight problems with literature reviews and how to fix them (2020)Prevalence of depression, anxiety and post-traumatic stress disorder in health care workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: A systematic review and meta-analysis (2021)Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness (2024)Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach (2012)ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed (2015)AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both (2017)Musculoskeletal pain and sedentary behaviour in occupational and non-occupational settings: a systematic review with meta-analysis (2021)The Impact of COVID-19 School Closure on Child and Adolescent Health: A Rapid Systematic Review (2021)Automated Paper Screening for Clinical Reviews Using Large Language Models: Data Analysis Study (2023)CONSORT 2010 Statement: updated guidelines for reporting parallel group randomised trials (2010)Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions (2020)Artificial intelligence to automate the systematic review of scientific literature (2023)Guidance to best tools and practices for systematic reviews (2023)Artificial intelligence for literature reviews: opportunities and challenges (2024)Performance and usability of machine learning for screening in systematic reviews: a comparative evaluation of three tools (2019)Searching for and selecting studies (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

  • 2016Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews25,980 cited
  • 2015Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches680 cited
  • 2019Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review625 cited
  • 2015Erratum to: Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches353 cited
  • 2020Machine learning reduced workload with minimal risk of missing studies: development and evaluation of a randomized controlled trial classifier for Cochrane Reviews252 cited
  • 2020Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial206 cited
  • 2015Faster title and abstract screening? Evaluating Abstrackr, a semi-automated online screening program for systematic reviewers184 cited
  • 2016Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the efficiency of study identification methods in systematic reviews162 cited
  • 2018Technology-assisted title and abstract screening for systematic reviews: a retrospective evaluation of the Abstrackr machine learning tool148 cited
  • 2013Methodological developments in searching for studies for systematic reviews: past, present and future?112 cited
  • 2020Machine learning for screening prioritization in systematic reviews: comparative performance of Abstrackr and EPPI-Reviewer112 cited
  • 2017Can abstract screening workload be reduced using text mining? User experiences of the tool Rayyan

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

101 cited
  • 2021Resource use during systematic review production varies widely: a scoping review98 cited
  • 2019Assessing the accuracy of machine-assisted abstract screening with DistillerAI: a user study73 cited
  • 2016Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri‐food public health40 cited
  • Cited by

    • 2025Digital Tools to Support the Systematic Review Process: An Introduction22 cited
    • 2025Exploring the use of LLMs for the selection phase in systematic literature studies16 cited
    • 2025AI tools for systematic literature reviews and meta-analyses in educational psychology: An overview and a practical guide12 cited
    • 2026Artificial Intelligence in Literature Review Synthesis: A Step-by-Step Methodological Approach for Researchers and Academics9 cited