Dies ist eine Übersichtsseite mit Metadaten zu dieser wissenschaftlichen Arbeit. Der vollständige Artikel ist beim Verlag verfügbar.
Error rates of human reviewers during abstract screening in systematic reviews
200
Zitationen
5
Autoren
2020
Jahr
Abstract
This study suggests important false inclusion and exclusion rates by human reviewers. When deciding the validity of a future automated study selection algorithm, it is important to keep in mind that the gold standard is not perfect and that achieving error rates similar to humans may be adequate and can save resources and time.
Ähnliche Arbeiten
The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
2021 · 84.807 Zit.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement
2009 · 82.774 Zit.
The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical Data
1977 · 76.832 Zit.
Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The PRISMA Statement
2009 · 62.698 Zit.
Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses
2003 · 61.430 Zit.