Fast-and-frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY Research Synthesis Methods Pub Date : 2024-09-05 DOI:10.1002/jrsm.1754
Robert C. Lorenz, Mirjam Jenny, Anja Jacobs, Katja Matthias
{"title":"Fast-and-frugal decision tree for the rapid critical appraisal of systematic reviews","authors":"Robert C. Lorenz,&nbsp;Mirjam Jenny,&nbsp;Anja Jacobs,&nbsp;Katja Matthias","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1754","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Conducting high-quality overviews of reviews (OoR) is time-consuming. Because the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) varies, it is necessary to critically appraise SRs when conducting an OoR. A well-established appraisal tool is A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, which takes about 15–32 min per application. To save time, we developed two fast-and-frugal decision trees (FFTs) for assessing the methodological quality of SR for OoR either during the full-text screening stage (Screening FFT) or to the resulting pool of SRs (Rapid Appraisal FFT). To build a data set for developing the FFT, we identified published AMSTAR 2 appraisals. Overall confidence ratings of the AMSTAR 2 were used as a criterion and the 16 items as cues. One thousand five hundred and nineteen appraisals were obtained from 24 publications and divided into training and test data sets. The resulting Screening FFT consists of three items and correctly identifies all non-critically low-quality SRs (sensitivity of 100%), but has a positive predictive value of 59%. The three-item Rapid Appraisal FFT correctly identifies 80% of the high-quality SRs and correctly identifies 97% of the low-quality SRs, resulting in an accuracy of 95%. The FFTs require about 10% of the 16 AMSTAR 2 items. The Screening FFT may be applied during full-text screening to exclude SRs with critically low quality. The Rapid Appraisal FFT may be applied to the final SR pool to identify SR that might be of high methodological quality.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":"15 6","pages":"1049-1059"},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-05","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1754","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1754","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Conducting high-quality overviews of reviews (OoR) is time-consuming. Because the quality of systematic reviews (SRs) varies, it is necessary to critically appraise SRs when conducting an OoR. A well-established appraisal tool is A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, which takes about 15–32 min per application. To save time, we developed two fast-and-frugal decision trees (FFTs) for assessing the methodological quality of SR for OoR either during the full-text screening stage (Screening FFT) or to the resulting pool of SRs (Rapid Appraisal FFT). To build a data set for developing the FFT, we identified published AMSTAR 2 appraisals. Overall confidence ratings of the AMSTAR 2 were used as a criterion and the 16 items as cues. One thousand five hundred and nineteen appraisals were obtained from 24 publications and divided into training and test data sets. The resulting Screening FFT consists of three items and correctly identifies all non-critically low-quality SRs (sensitivity of 100%), but has a positive predictive value of 59%. The three-item Rapid Appraisal FFT correctly identifies 80% of the high-quality SRs and correctly identifies 97% of the low-quality SRs, resulting in an accuracy of 95%. The FFTs require about 10% of the 16 AMSTAR 2 items. The Screening FFT may be applied during full-text screening to exclude SRs with critically low quality. The Rapid Appraisal FFT may be applied to the final SR pool to identify SR that might be of high methodological quality.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
用于快速批判性评估系统综述的 "快速节俭决策树"。
进行高质量的综述(OoR)非常耗时。由于系统性综述(SR)的质量参差不齐,因此在进行 OoR 时有必要对系统性综述进行严格评估。一个成熟的评估工具是系统综述评估工具(AMSTAR)2,每次应用大约需要 15-32 分钟。为了节省时间,我们开发了两种快速、节俭的决策树(FFT),用于在全文筛选阶段(筛选 FFT)或由此产生的系统综述库(快速评估 FFT)中评估 OoR 的系统综述方法学质量。为了建立开发 FFT 的数据集,我们确定了已发表的 AMSTAR 2 评估。以 AMSTAR 2 的总体信心评级为标准,以 16 个项目为线索。我们从 24 份出版物中获得了 1519 份鉴定,并将其分为训练数据集和测试数据集。由此产生的筛选快速鉴定模型由三个项目组成,能正确识别所有非临界低质量 SR(灵敏度为 100%),但阳性预测值为 59%。由三个项目组成的快速评估 FFT 能正确识别 80% 的高质量 SR,正确识别 97% 的低质量 SR,准确率达到 95%。FFT需要16个AMSTAR 2项目中的大约10%。筛选 FFT 可用于全文筛选,以排除质量极低的 SR。快速评估 FFT 可用于最终 SR 库,以确定可能具有较高方法学质量的 SR。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
期刊最新文献
Issue Information A tutorial on aggregating evidence from conceptual replication studies using the product Bayes factor Evolving use of the Cochrane Risk of Bias 2 tool in biomedical systematic reviews Exploring methodological approaches used in network meta-analysis of psychological interventions: A scoping review An evaluation of the performance of stopping rules in AI-aided screening for psychological meta-analytical research
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1