Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial

Abstract

Objectives: To determine the accuracy of single-reviewer screening in correctly classifying abstracts as relevant or irrelevant for literature reviews.

Study design and setting: We conducted a crowd-based, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Using the Cochrane Crowd platform, we randomly assigned eligible participants to 100 abstracts each of a pharmacological or a public health topic. After completing a training exercise, participants screened abstracts online based on predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria. We calculated sensitivities and specificities of single- and dual-reviewer screening using two published systematic reviews as reference standards.

Results: Two hundred and eighty participants made 24,942 screening decisions on 2,000 randomly selected abstracts from the reference standard reviews. On average, each abstract was screened 12 times. Overall, single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13% of relevant studies (sensitivity: 86.6%; 95% confidence interval [CI], 80.6%-91.2%). By comparison, dual-reviewer abstract screening missed 3% of relevant studies (sensitivity: 97.5%; 95% CI, 95.1%-98.8%). The corresponding specificities were 79.2% (95% CI, 77.4%-80.9%) and 68.7% (95% CI, 66.4%-71.0%), respectively.

Conclusions: Single-reviewer abstract screening does not appear to fulfill the high methodological standards that decisionmakers expect from systematic reviews. It may be a viable option for rapid reviews, which deliberately lower methodological standards to provide decision makers with accelerated evidence synthesis products.

Keywords: Accuracy; Literature screening; Randomized controlled trial; Rapid reviews; Systematic reviews.