Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2023 Jul 20;1(5):e12021.
doi: 10.1002/cesm.12021. eCollection 2023 Jul.

Machine learning for accelerating screening in evidence reviews

Affiliations

Machine learning for accelerating screening in evidence reviews

Mary Chappell et al. Cochrane Evid Synth Methods. .

Abstract

Evidence reviews are important for informing decision-making and primary research, but they can be time-consuming and costly. With the advent of artificial intelligence, including machine learning, there is an opportunity to accelerate the review process at many stages, with study screening identified as a prime candidate for assistance. Despite the availability of a large number of tools promising to assist with study screening, these are not consistently used in practice and there is skepticism about their application. Single-arm evaluations suggest the potential for tools to reduce screening burden. However, their integration into practice may need further investigation through evaluations of outcomes such as overall resource use and impact on review findings and recommendations. Because the literature lacks comparative studies, it is not currently possible to determine their relative accuracy. In this commentary, we outline the published research and discuss options for incorporating tools into the review workflow, considering the needs and requirements of different types of review.

Keywords: machine learning; rapid review; record screening; systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

The authors declare no conflict of interest.

Similar articles

References

    1. Yan K, Balijepalli C, Druyts E. Is it always possible to complete a systematic review in 2 weeks? Further thoughts and considerations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;126:162‐163. - PubMed
    1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy‐five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Beller E, Clark J, Tsafnat G, et al. Making progress with the automation of systematic reviews: principles of the International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2018;7:77. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E. Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014;3:74. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Gates A, Gates M, Sebastianski M, Guitard S, Elliott SA, Hartling L. The semi‐automation of title and abstract screening: a retrospective exploration of ways to leverage Abstrackr's relevance predictions in systematic and rapid reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:139. - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources