Usability and agreement of the SWIFT-ActiveScreener systematic review support tool: Preliminary evaluation for use in clinical research

Systematic reviews (SRs) employ standardized methodological processes for synthesizing empirical evidence to answer specific research questions. These processes include rigorous screening phases to determine eligibility of articles against strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Despite these processes, SRs are a significant undertaking, and this type of research often necessitates extensive human resource requirements, especially when the scope of the review is large. Given the substantial resources and time commitment required, we investigated a way in which the screening process might be accelerated while maintaining high fidelity and adherence to SR processes. More recently, researchers have turned to artificial intelligence-based (AI) software to expedite the screening process. This paper evaluated the agreement and usability of a novel machine learning program, Sciome SWIFT-ActiveScreener (ActiveScreener), in a large SR of mental health outcomes following treatment for PTSD. ActiveScreener exceeded the expected 95% agreement of the program with screeners to predict inclusion or exclusion of relevant articles at the title/abstract assessment phase of the review and was reported to be user friendly by both novice and seasoned screeners. ActiveScreener, when used appropriately, may be a useful tool when performing SR in a clinical context.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
PLoS ONE
Published
2024-11-21
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0291163
Citations
2
Primary Topic
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.92
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Usability and agreement of the SWIFT-ActiveScreener systematic review support tool: Preliminary evaluation for use in clinical research

Anthony Nazarov, Maede S. Nouri, Jenny J. W. Liu, J. Don Richardson et al.
2 citations
PLoS ONE
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
0.92
article

Usability and agreement of the SWIFT-ActiveScreener systematic review support tool: Preliminary evaluation for use in clinical research

Anthony Nazarov, Maede S. Nouri, Jenny J. W. Liu, J. Don Richardson, Bethany Easterbrook, Natalie Ein, Julia Gervasio
article en
2 citations

Abstract

Systematic reviews (SRs) employ standardized methodological processes for synthesizing empirical evidence to answer specific research questions. These processes include rigorous screening phases to determine eligibility of articles against strict inclusion and exclusion criteria. Despite these processes, SRs are a significant undertaking, and this type of research often necessitates extensive human resource requirements, especially when the scope of the review is large. Given the substantial resources and time commitment required, we investigated a way in which the screening process might be accelerated while maintaining high fidelity and adherence to SR processes. More recently, researchers have turned to artificial intelligence-based (AI) software to expedite the screening process. This paper evaluated the agreement and usability of a novel machine learning program, Sciome SWIFT-ActiveScreener (ActiveScreener), in a large SR of mental health outcomes following treatment for PTSD. ActiveScreener exceeded the expected 95% agreement of the program with screeners to predict inclusion or exclusion of relevant articles at the title/abstract assessment phase of the review and was reported to be user friendly by both novice and seasoned screeners. ActiveScreener, when used appropriately, may be a useful tool when performing SR in a clinical context.

PLoS ONEVol. 19(11)
Western University (CA), Lawson Health Research Institute (CA), St Joseph's Health Care (CA), Toronto Metropolitan University (CA), McMaster University (CA)
Reduced inequalities
Openalex Percentile: Top 20%
Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
0.92
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.