NotesFAQContact Us
Collection
Advanced
Search Tips
Showing all 4 results Save | Export
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Yuan Tian; Xi Yang; Suhail A. Doi; Luis Furuya-Kanamori; Lifeng Lin; Joey S. W. Kwong; Chang Xu – Research Synthesis Methods, 2024
RobotReviewer is a tool for automatically assessing the risk of bias in randomized controlled trials, but there is limited evidence of its reliability. We evaluated the agreement between RobotReviewer and humans regarding the risk of bias assessment based on 1955 randomized controlled trials. The risk of bias in these trials was assessed via two…
Descriptors: Risk, Randomized Controlled Trials, Classification, Robotics
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Wanner, Amanda; Baumann, Niki – Research Synthesis Methods, 2019
Background: Both PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE contain records from the MEDLINE database. However, there are subtle differences in content, functionality, and search syntax between the two. There are many instances in which researchers may wish to search both interfaces, such as when conducting supplementary searching for a systematic review to retrieve…
Descriptors: Search Strategies, Databases, Medical Research, Medical Evaluation
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Reid, Edwin; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Fiordalisi, Celia; Macdonald, Scott; Chang, Stephanie – Research Synthesis Methods, 2021
Evidence-based decision-making is predicated on the ability of users to find and comprehend results from systematic review. Evidence producers have an obligation to support evidence users in this process. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) program--a producer of rigorous and comprehensive…
Descriptors: Evidence Based Practice, Decision Making, Criticism, Health Services
Peer reviewed Peer reviewed
Direct linkDirect link
Marshall, Iain J.; Noel-Storr, Anna; Kuiper, Joël; Thomas, James; Wallace, Byron C. – Research Synthesis Methods, 2018
Machine learning (ML) algorithms have proven highly accurate for identifying Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) but are not used much in practice, in part because the best way to make use of the technology in a typical workflow is unclear. In this work, we evaluate ML models for RCT classification (support vector machines, convolutional neural…
Descriptors: Randomized Controlled Trials, Accuracy, Computer Software, Classification