TY - JOUR
T1 - The risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates can be estimated by learning from a database of published examples
AU - Bashir, Rabia
AU - Surian, Didi
AU - Dunn, Adam G.
PY - 2019/6/1
Y1 - 2019/6/1
N2 - Objectives: To determine which systematic review characteristics are needed to estimate the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates. Study Design and Setting: We applied classification trees (a machine learning method) to model the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates, using pairs of systematic reviews and their updates as samples. The classifiers were constructed using a set of features extracted from systematic reviews and the relevant trials added in published updates. Model performance was measured by recall, precision, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: We identified 63 pairs of systematic reviews and updates, of which 20 (32%) exhibited a change in conclusion in their updates. A classifier using information about new trials exhibited the highest performance (AUC: 0.71; recall: 0.75; precision: 0.43) compared to a classifier that used fewer features (AUC: 0.65; recall: 0.75; precision: 0.39). Conclusion: When estimating the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates, information about the sizes of trials that will be added in an update are most useful. Future tools aimed at signaling conclusion change risks would benefit from complementary tools that automate screening of relevant trials.
AB - Objectives: To determine which systematic review characteristics are needed to estimate the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates. Study Design and Setting: We applied classification trees (a machine learning method) to model the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates, using pairs of systematic reviews and their updates as samples. The classifiers were constructed using a set of features extracted from systematic reviews and the relevant trials added in published updates. Model performance was measured by recall, precision, and area under the receiver operating characteristic curve (AUC). Results: We identified 63 pairs of systematic reviews and updates, of which 20 (32%) exhibited a change in conclusion in their updates. A classifier using information about new trials exhibited the highest performance (AUC: 0.71; recall: 0.75; precision: 0.43) compared to a classifier that used fewer features (AUC: 0.65; recall: 0.75; precision: 0.39). Conclusion: When estimating the risk of conclusion change in systematic review updates, information about the sizes of trials that will be added in an update are most useful. Future tools aimed at signaling conclusion change risks would benefit from complementary tools that automate screening of relevant trials.
KW - Automation of systematic reviews
KW - Classification trees
KW - Clinical trial registries
KW - Machine learning
KW - Systematic reviews as topic
KW - Updating systematic reviews
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85063330095&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.015
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.02.015
M3 - Article
C2 - 30849512
AN - SCOPUS:85063330095
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 110
SP - 42
EP - 49
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -