timm
commented
7 years ago "These results indicate that there would have been negligible impact on the findings or conclusions of this ‘case study’ review as a consequence of reduced recall associated with use of ‘single screening’, or ‘single screening with text mining’, rather than the ‘safety first’ approach implemented in practice or conventional ‘double screening’."
👍
Use of cost-effectiveness analysis to compare the efficiency of study identification methods in systematic reviews
Impact of reduced recall on the ‘case study’ review
As shown in Figs. 2 and 3 (and in Tables 4 and 5) above, the use of a ‘single screening’ approach would have resulted in the exclusion of one eligible study [22] from the ‘case study’ systematic review, while use of the ‘single screening with text mining’ approach would have resulted in the exclusion of eight other eligible studies [23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30]. Analysis of the contributions made by these nine ‘false negative’ studies to the ‘case study’ review found that all nine contributed only to the descriptive component of the review (i.e. were used to inform a descriptive summary of the included studies) but none were cited in relation to specific points of analysis within this component. None of these ‘false negative’ studies were among the set of studies incorporated into either the quantitative in-depth analysis, nor among the set incorporated into the in-depth qualitative synthesis (meta-ethnography). While one of the ‘false negative’ studies did provide a distinctive perspective concerning the influence of workplace-based learning in general practice on patient care [26], we believe this study would have been identified by one of the two complementary search methods deployed in the ‘case study’ review (namely, stakeholder consultation; the other complementary search method used, namely backward citation tracking [31, 32], would not have identified this study as it was not cited in reference lists of studies incorporated into the in-depth syntheses). These results indicate that there would have been negligible impact on the findings or conclusions of this ‘case study’ review as a consequence of reduced recall associated with use of ‘single screening’, or ‘single screening with text mining’, rather than the ‘safety first’ approach implemented in practice or conventional ‘double screening’.