RESUMEN
BACKGROUND: Completing large systematic reviews and maintaining them up to date poses significant challenges. This is mainly due to the toll required of a small group of experts to screen and extract potentially eligible citations. Automated approaches have failed so far in providing an accessible and adaptable tool to the research community. Over the past decade, crowdsourcing has become attractive in the scientific field, and implementing it in citation screening could save the investigative team significant work and decrease the time to publication. METHODS: Citations from the 2015 update of a pediatrics vitamin D systematic review were uploaded to an online platform designed for crowdsourcing the screening process (http://www.CHEORI.org/en/CrowdScreenOverview). Three sets of exclusion criteria were used for screening, with a review of abstracts at level one, and full-text eligibility determined through two screening stages. Two trained reviewers, who participated in the initial systematic review, established citation eligibility. In parallel, each citation received four independent assessments from an untrained crowd with a medical background. Citations were retained or excluded if they received three congruent assessments. Otherwise, they were reviewed by the principal investigator. Measured outcomes included sensitivity of the crowd to retain eligible studies, and potential work saved defined as citations sorted by the crowd (excluded or retained) without involvement of the principal investigator. RESULTS: A total of 148 citations for screening were identified, of which 20 met eligibility criteria (true positives). The four reviewers from the crowd agreed completely on 63% (95% CI: 57-69%) of assessments, and achieved a sensitivity of 100% (95% CI: 88-100%) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI: 96-100%). Potential work saved to the research team was 84% (95% CI: 77-89%) at the abstract screening stage, and 73% (95% CI: 67-79%) through all three levels. In addition, different thresholds for citation retention and exclusion were assessed. With an algorithm favoring sensitivity (citation excluded only if all four reviewers agree), sensitivity was maintained at 100%, with a decrease of potential work saved to 66% (95% CI: 59-71%). In contrast, increasing the threshold required for retention (exclude all citations not obtaining 3/4 retain assessments) decreased sensitivity to 85% (95% CI: 65-96%), while improving potential workload saved to 92% (95% CI: 88-95%). CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the accuracy of crowdsourcing for systematic review citations screening, with retention of all eligible articles and a significant reduction in the work required from the investigative team. Together, these two findings suggest that crowdsourcing could represent a significant advancement in the area of systematic review. Future directions include further study to assess validity across medical fields and determination of the capacity of a non-medical crowd.
RESUMEN
Background. Due to inadequate UV exposure, intake of small quantities of vitamin D is recommended to prevent musculoskeletal disease. Both basic science and observational literature strongly suggest that higher doses may benefit specific populations and have non-musculoskeletal roles. Evaluating the evidence surrounding high dose supplementation can be challenging given a relatively large and growing body of clinical trial evidence spanning time, geography, populations and dosing regimens. Study objectives were to identify and summarize the clinical trial literature, recognize areas with high quality evidence, and develop a resource database that makes the literature more immediately accessible to end users. Methods. Medline (1946 to January 2015), Embase (1974 to January 2015), and Cochrane databases (January 2015), were searched for trials. All pediatric (0-18 years) trials administering doses higher than 400 IU (<1 year) or 600 IU (≥1 year) were included. Data was extracted independently by two of the authors. An online searchable database of trials was developed containing relevant extracted information (http://www.cheori.org/en/pedvitaminddatabaseOverview). Sensitivity and utility were assessed by comparing the trials in the database with those from systematic reviews of vitamin D supplementation including children. Results. A total of 2,579 candidate papers were identified, yielding 169 trials having one or more arms meeting eligibility criteria. The publication rate has increased significantly from 1 per year (1970-1979) to 14 per year (2010-2015). Although 84% of the total trials focused on healthy children or known high risk populations (e.g., renal, prematurity), this proportion has declined in recent years due to the rise in trials evaluating populations and outcomes not directly related to the musculoskeletal actions of vitamin D (27% in 2010s). Beyond healthy children, the only pediatric populations with more than 50 participants from low risk of bias trials evaluating a clinically relevant outcome were prematurity and respiratory illness. Finally, we created and validated the online searchable database using 13 recent systematic reviews. Of the 38 high dose trials identified by the systematic review, 36 (94.7%) could be found within the database. When compared with the search strategy reported in each systematic review, use of the database reduced the number of full papers to assess for eligibility by 85.2% (±13.4%). Conclusion. The pediatric vitamin D field is highly active, with a significant increase in trials evaluating non-classical diseases and outcomes. Despite the large overall number there are few high quality trials of sufficient size to provide answers on clinical efficacy of high-dose vitamin D. An open access online searchable data should assist end users in the rapid and comprehensive identification and evaluation of trials relevant to their population or question of interest.