Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-rcrh6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-29T08:10:01.291Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

ITERATIVE SIFTING IN THE SELECTION OF RESEARCH EVIDENCE: IMPLICATIONS FOR REVIEWS AND OTHER DECISION PROBLEMS

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  12 May 2015

Rachel Archer ,
Suzy Paisley ,
Munira Essat ,
Louise Preston  and
Martin Thornhill
Rachel Archer
Affiliation:
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield [email protected]
Suzy Paisley
Affiliation:
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield
Munira Essat
Affiliation:
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield
Louise Preston
Affiliation:
School of Health and Related Research, University of Sheffield
Martin Thornhill
Affiliation:
Academic Unit of Oral & Maxillofacial Medicine & Surgery, School of Clinical Dentistry, University of Sheffield
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: A rapid scoping review was performed to support the development of a new clinical technology platform. An iterative sifting approach was adopted to address the challenges posed by the nature of the review question and the extremely large volume of search results to be sifted within the timescales of the review.

Methods: This study describes the iterative sifting approach applied in the scoping review and a preliminary validation of the methods applied.

Results: The searches performed for the rapid scoping review retrieved 27,198 records. This was the full set of records subjected to the staged, iterative sifting approach and the subsequent validation process. The iterative sifting approach involved the screening for relevance of 17,354 (i.e., 63.8 percent) of the 27,198 records. A list of fifty-three potential biomarker names was generated as a result of this iterative sifting method, of which nineteen were selected by clinical specialists for further scrutiny. The preliminary validation involved the exhaustive sifting of the remaining 9,844 previously unsifted records. The validation process identified sixteen additional potential biomarker names not identified by the iterative sifting process. The clinical specialists subsequently concluded that none were of further clinical interest.

Conclusions: This study describes an approach to the screening of search records that can be successfully applied in appropriate review and decision problems to allow the prioritization of the most relevant search records and achieve time savings. Following further refinement and standardization, this iterative sifting method may have potential for further applications in reviews and other decision problems.

Keywords

Systematic reviewStudy selectionIdentification of evidence
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 31 , Issue 1-2 , 2015 , pp. 54 - 58
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2015 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Paisley, S. Identifying evidence to inform decision-analytic models of cost-effectiveness: a qualitative study of information seeking processes and behaviour. PhD thesis. University of Sheffield; 2012.Google Scholar
2. Goodacre, S, Thokala, P, Carroll, C, et al. Systematic review, meta-analysis and economic modelling of diagnostic strategies for suspected acute coronary syndrome. Health Technol Assess. 2013;17:v–188.Google Scholar
3. Thomas, J, McNaught, J, Ananiadou, S. Applications of text mining within systematic reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2011;2:1–14.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed