定位：利用正在进行的引文获取技术对实时证据综合进行前瞻性评估。

LOCATE: a prospective evaluation of the value of Leveraging Ongoing Citation Acquisition Techniques for living Evidence syntheses.

机构信息

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 4-486C Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 4-488A Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405-87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, Alberta, T6G 1C9, Canada.

出版信息

Syst Rev. 2021 Apr 19;10(1):116. doi: 10.1186/s13643-021-01665-x.

DOI:10.1186/s13643-021-01665-x

PMID:33875014

原文链接:https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8056603/

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) can expedite evidence synthesis by incorporating new evidence in real time. However, the methods needed to identify new studies in a timely manner are not well established.

OBJECTIVES

To explore the value of complementary search approaches in terms of search performance, impact on results and conclusions, screening workload, and feasibility compared to the reference standard.

METHODS

We developed three complementary search approaches for a systematic review on treatments for bronchiolitis: Automated Full Search, PubMed Similar Articles, and Scopus Citing References. These were automated to retrieve results monthly; pairs of reviewers screened the records and commented on feasibility. After 1 year, we conducted a full update search (reference standard). For each complementary approach, we compared search performance (proportion missed, number needed to read [NNR]) and reviewer workload (number of records screened, time required) to the reference standard. We investigated the impact of the new trials on the effect estimate and certainty of evidence for the primary outcomes. We summarized comments about feasibility.

RESULTS

Via the reference standard, reviewers screened 505 titles/abstracts, 24 full texts, and identified four new trials (NNR 127; 12.4 h). Of the complementary approaches, only the Automated Full Search located all four trials; these were located 6 to 12 months sooner than via the reference standard but did not alter the results nor certainty in the evidence. The Automated Full Search was the most resource-intensive approach (816 records screened; NNR 204; 17.1 h). The PubMed Similar Articles and Scopus Citing References approaches located far fewer records (452 and 244, respectively), thereby requiring less screening time (9.4 and 5.2 h); however, each approach located only one of the four new trials. Reviewers found it feasible and convenient to conduct monthly screening for searches of this yield (median 15-65 records/month).

CONCLUSIONS

The Automated Full Search was the most resource-intensive approach, but also the only to locate all of the newly published trials. Although the monthly screening time for the PubMed Similar Articles and Scopus Citing Articles was far less, most relevant records were missed. These approaches were feasible to integrate into reviewer work processes.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Open Science Framework. https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/6M28H .

摘要

背景

实时纳入新证据的实时系统评价（LSRs）可以加速证据综合。然而，及时识别新研究的方法尚不完善。

目的

探索补充检索方法在检索性能、对结果和结论的影响、筛选工作量以及与参考标准的可行性方面的价值。

方法

我们为一项关于细支气管炎治疗的系统评价开发了三种补充检索方法：自动全面检索、PubMed 相似文章和 Scopus 引文参考文献。这些方法每月自动检索结果；两名评审员筛选记录并评论可行性。一年后，我们进行了全面更新检索（参考标准）。对于每种补充方法，我们将其检索性能（漏检率、阅读量需要率[NNR]）和评审员工作量（筛选记录数、所需时间）与参考标准进行比较。我们调查了新试验对主要结局的效应估计和证据确定性的影响。我们总结了关于可行性的意见。

结果

通过参考标准，评审员筛选了 505 篇标题/摘要、24 篇全文，并确定了 4 项新试验（NNR 127；12.4 小时）。仅自动全面检索方法找到了所有 4 项试验；这些试验比参考标准早 6 至 12 个月找到，但并未改变结果或证据的确定性。自动全面检索方法是资源最密集的方法（筛选 816 篇记录；NNR 204；17.1 小时）。PubMed 相似文章和 Scopus 引文参考文献方法的记录数量少得多（分别为 452 和 244），因此需要的筛选时间更少（9.4 和 5.2 小时）；然而，每种方法都只找到了 4 项新试验中的 1 项。评审员发现，对于这种产出的每月检索（中位数每月 15-65 条记录），每月进行检索是可行和方便的。