Sensitivity and specificity of alternative screening methods for systematic reviews using text mining tools.

OBJECTIVES: To evaluate the impact of text mining (TM) on the sensitivity and specificity of title and abstract screening strategies for systematic reviews (SRs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Twenty reviewers each evaluated a 500-citation set. We compared five screening methods: conventional double screen (CDS), single screen, double screen with TM, combined double screen and single screen with TM, and single screen with TM. Rayyan, Abstrackr, and SWIFT-Review were used for each TM method. The results of a published SR were used as the reference standard. RESULTS: The mean sensitivity and specificity achieved by CDS were 97.0% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 94.7, 99.3) and 95.0% (95% CI: 93.0, 97.1). When compared with single screen, CDS provided a greater sensitivity without a decrease in specificity. Rayyan, Abstrackr, and SWIFT-Review identified all relevant studies. Specificity was often higher for TM-assisted methods than that for CDS, although with mean differences of only one-to-two percentage points. For every 500 citations not requiring manual screening, 216 minutes (95% CI: 169, 264) could be saved. CONCLUSION: TM-assisted screening methods resulted in similar sensitivity and modestly improved specificity as compared to CDS. The time saved with TM makes this a promising new tool for SR.