Skip to main content

Table 4 Summary of screening workload savings for three systematic reviews

From: Automated screening of research studies for systematic reviews using study characteristics

Screening rule

TP

FP

FN

TN

Pr

Re

Work saved

Hamra 2014 (n = 615 articles)

Max = 97.2%

 All 4 PECO Terms

5

5

12

593

50%

29%

98.4%

 Any 3 PECO Terms

12

24

5

574

33%

71%

94.1%

 Any 2 PECO Terms

17

89

0

509

16%

100%

82.8%

 PEO

11

17

6

581

39%

60%

95.4%

 PE

11

13

6

585

46%

65%

96.1%

 EO

17

65

0

533

21%

100%

86.7%

Johnson 2014 (n = 2470 articles)

Max = 99.3%

 All 4 PECO Terms

3

1

14

2455

75%

18%

99.8%

 Any 3 PECO Terms

14

12

3

2441

54%

82%

98.9%

 Any 2 PECO Terms

16

60

1

2393

21%

94%

96.9%

 PEO

13

49

4

2413

25%

76%

97.5%

 PE

13

5

4

1551

72%

76%

99.3%

 EO

16

11

1

2442

59%

94%

98.9%

Thayer 2013 (n = 1880 articles)

Max = 99.4%

 All 4 PECO Terms

7

20

13

1840

26%

35%

98.6%

 Any 3 PECO Terms

9

83

2

1786

10%

82%

95.1%

 Any 2 PECO Terms

11

304

0

1565

3%

100%

83.2%

 PEO

7

116

4

1753

6%

64%

93.5%

 PE

14

45

6

1815

24%

70%

96.9%

 EO

11

195

0

1674

5%

100%

89.0%

Average (n = 4965 articles)

Max = 99.1%

 All 4 PECO Terms

15

26

39

4888

37%

28%

99.2%

 Any 3 PECO Terms

35

119

10

4801

23%

78%

96.9%

 Any 2 PECO Terms

44

453

1

4467

9%

98%

90.0%

 PEO

31

182

14

4747

15%

69%

95.7%

 PE

38

63

16

3951

38%

70%

98.0%

 EO

44

271

1

4649

14%

98%

93.7%

  1. Work saved is the proportion of all positives in the entire set of n references (i.e., 1 − (TP + FP)/n)
  2. TP true positive, FP false positives, FN false negative, TN true negative, P precision, Re recall