Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the efficiency of study identification methods in systematic reviews

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 5, Issue 1, 2016, Pages

  Shemilt, Ian ^a   Khan, Nada ^b   Park, Sophie ^b   Thomas, James ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF LONDON   (United Kingdom)

^b UNIVERSITY COLLEGE LONDON   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS; DEVELOPMENTAL SCREENING; HUMAN; INTERRATER RELIABILITY; MEDICAL EDUCATION; MEDICAL RESEARCH; PRIORITY JOURNAL; REVIEW; SENSITIVITY ANALYSIS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); TELECONFERENCE; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA MINING; METHODOLOGY; PATIENT SAFETY; PROCEDURES;

COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DATA MINING; HUMANS; PATIENT SAFETY; RESEARCH DESIGN;

EID: 84982175121     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-016-0315-4     Document Type: Review

References (33)

1. Macleod MR, Michie S, Roberts I, Dirnagl U, Chalmers I, Ioannidis JPA, et al. Biomedical research: increasing value, reducing waste [Editorial]. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):101-4.
2. Ioannidis JPA, Greenland S, Hlatky MA, Khoury MJ, Macleod MR, Moher D, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in research design, conduct, and analysis. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):166-75.
3. Salman RA-S, Beller E, Kagan J, Hemminki E, Phillips RS, Savulescu J, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research regulation and management. Lancet. 2014;383(9912):176-85.
4. Chan A-W, Song F, Vickers A, Jefferson T, Dickersin K, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Increasing value and reducing waste: addressing inaccessible research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):257-66.
5. Glasziou P, Altman DG, Bossuyt P, Boutron I, Clarke M, Julious S, et al. Reducing waste from incomplete or unusable reports of biomedical research. Lancet. 2014;383(9913):267-76.
6. Ioannidis JPA, Fanelli D, Dunne DD, Goodman SN. Meta-research: evaluation and improvement of research methods and practices. PLoS Biol. 2015;13(10):e1002264.
7. McKenzie JE, Clarke MJ, Chandler J. Why do we need evidence-based methods in Cochrane? [Editorial]. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ED000102.
8. Anonymous. Education section-studies within a review (SWAR). J Evid Based Med. 2012;5(3):188-89
9. Brunton G, Stansfield C, Thomas J. Finding Relevant Studies. In: Gough D, Oliver S, Thomas J, editors. An introduction to systematic reviews. London: Sage; 2012. p. 107-34.
10. Lefebvre C, Manheimer E, Glanville J: Chapter 6: Searching for studies. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed 1 July 2016.
11. Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, editors. Chapter 7: Selecting studies and collecting data. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions, Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. http://handbook.cochrane.org. Accessed 1 July 2016.
12. Cochrane methodology reviews. Cochrane Methodology Review Group. 2016. http://methodology.cochrane.org. Accessed 1 July 2016.
13. Husereau D, Drummond M, Petrou S, Carswell C, Moher D, Greenberg D, et al. Consolidated health economic evaluation reporting standards (CHEERS) statement. BMJ. 2013;346:f1049.
14. Park S, Khan NF, Hampshire M, Knox R, Malpass A, Thomas J, et al. A BEME systematic review of UK undergraduate medical education in the general practice setting: BEME Guide No. 32. Med Teach. 2015;37(7):611-30.
15. Wallace B, Trikalinos T, Lau J, Brodley C, Schmid C. Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:55.
16. O'Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):5.
17. Thomas J. Diffusion of innovation in systematic review methodology: why is study selection not yet assisted by automation? Evid Based Med. 2013;1(2):12.
18. Thomas J, Brunton J, Graziosi S. EPPI-Reviewer 4.0: software for research synthesis. London: EPPI-Centre Software, Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education; 2010.
19. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697-703.
20. Drummond MF, Sculpher MJ, Claxton K, Stoddart GL, Torrance GW. Methods for the economic evaluation of health care programmes. 4th ed. Oxford: Oxford University Press; 2015.
21. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG, The PRISMA Group. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6(7):e1000097.
22. Wainwright JR, Sullivan FM, Morrison JM, MacNaughton RJ, McConnachie A. Audit encourages an evidence-based approach to medical practice. Med Educ. 1999;33(12):907-14.
23. Hawthorne K, Wood F, Hood K, Cannings-John R, Houston H. Learning to mark: a qualitative study of the experiences and concerns of medical markers. BMC Med Educ. 2006;6:25.
24. Cannings R, Hawthorne K, Hood K, Houston H. Putting double marking to the test: a framework to assess if it is worth the trouble. Med Educ. 2005;39(3):299-308.
25. Duncan P, Cribb A, Stephenson A. Developing 'the good healthcare practitioner': clues from a study in medical education. Learn Health Soc Care. 2003;2(4):181-90.
26. McKinley RK, Fraser RC, Baker RH, Riley RD. The relationship between measures of patient satisfaction and enablement and professional assessments of consultation competence. Med Teach. 2004;26(3):223-8.
27. Nagel C, Kirby J, Rushforth B, Pearson D. Foundation programme doctors as teachers. Clinical Teach. 2011;8(4):249-53.
28. Himmel W, Kochen MM. How do academic heads of departments of general practice organize patient care? A European survey. Br J Gen Pract. 1995;45(394):231-4.
29. Wilson M, Cleland J. Evidence for the acceptability and academic success of an innovative remote and rural extended placement. Rural Remote Health. 2008;8(3):960.
30. Macfarlane F, Gantley M, Murray E. The CeMENT project: a case study in change management. Med Teach. 2002;24(3):320-6.
31. Papaioannou D, Sutton A, Carroll C, Booth A, Wong R. Literature searching for social science systematic reviews: consideration of a range of search techniques. Health Info Libr J. 2010;27(2):114-22.
32. Greenhalgh T, Peacock R. Effectiveness and efficiency of search methods in systematic reviews of complex evidence: audit of primary sources. BMJ. 2005;331(7524):1064-5.
33. Shemilt I, Simon A, Hollands GJ, Marteau TM, Ogilvie D, O'Mara-Eves A, et al. Pinpointing needles in giant haystacks: use of text mining to reduce impractical screening workload in extremely large scoping reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2014;5(1):31-9.