Search

Your search keyword '"Affengruber, Lisa"' showing total 44 results
Start Over Author "Affengruber, Lisa"
44 results on '"Affengruber, Lisa"'

1. An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review

Author

Affengruber, Lisa, van der Maten, Miriam M., Spiero, Isa, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Mahmić-Kaknjo, Mersiha, Ellen, Moriah E., Goossen, Käthe, Kantorova, Lucia, Hooft, Lotty, Riva, Nicoletta, Poulentzas, Georgios, Lalagkas, Panagiotis Nikolaos, Silva, Anabela G., Sassano, Michele, Sfetcu, Raluca, Marqués, María E., Friessova, Tereza, Baladia, Eduard, Pezzullo, Angelo Maria, Martinez, Patricia, Gartlehner, Gerald, and Spijker, René

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

16. Rapid review methods series: Guidance on the use of supportive software

Author

Affengruber, Lisa, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Hamel, Candyce, Van der Maten, Miriam, Thomas, James, Mavergames, Chris, Spijker, Rene, and Gartlehner, Gerald

Abstract

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. This paper guides how to use supportive software for RRs.We strongly encourage the use of supportive software throughout RR production. Specifically, we recommend (1) using collaborative online platforms that enable working in parallel, allow for real-time project management and centralise review details; (2) using automation software to support, but not entirely replace a human reviewer and human judgement and (3) being transparent in reporting the methodology and potential risk for bias due to the use of supportive software.

Published
2024
Full Text
View/download PDF

20. Identifying resource intensive areas of systematic review production and updating – a scoping review

Author

Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Ellen, Moriah, Klerings, Irma, Gartlehner, Gerald, Thomas, James, Mikkelsen, Lone, Riva, Nicoletta, Affengruber, Lisa, Silva, Anabela, Baladia, Eduard, Marques, Maria, Martínez, Patricia, Aguilar, Luis, Garroz, Roland, Martínez-Rodríguez, Rodrigo, Ziganshina, Liliya, Kontogiani, Meropi, M, Sousa, Kassianos, Angelos, Frampton, Geoff, Berg, Rigmor, Mersiha, and Spjker, Rene

Subjects
Scoping review, systematic review methods, resource use
Abstract

We aim to conduct a formal scoping review of the published literature assessing the resource intensity of each step of the systematic review process.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

21. Falsely excluded studies in the literature screening process - a systematic review

Author

Affengruber, Lisa, Klerings, Irma, Kleijnen, Jos, Wagner, Gernot, Sommer, Isolde, Dobrescu, Andreea, Kaminski-Hartenthaler, Angela, Persad, Emma, and Gartlehner, Gerald

Subjects
systematic review, falsely exlcuded studies, literature screening, Medicine and Health Sciences
Abstract

The aim of this project is to conduct a systematic review to obtain the various methods used to regain falsely excluded studies in the literature screening process and to identify their predictors (e.g. year of conduct, database indexing of the study, study type), characteristics of the studies which might influence their risk to be missed .

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

22. Improving efficiency of systematic reviews production through an exploration of available methods and tools – a scoping review

Author

Affengruber, Lisa, Hooft, Lotty, Kleijnen, Jos, Gartlehner, Gerald, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Mersiha, Marques, Maria, Silva, Anabela, Baladia, Eduard, Kassianos, Angelos, Ellen, Moriah, Kontogiorgis, Christos, Poulentzas, Georgios, Riva, Nicoletta, Berg, Rigmor, Frampton, Geoff, and Spjker, Rene

Subjects
context factors, rapid review, efficiency, Medicine and Health Sciences, scoping review, automation tools
Abstract

The main objective is to conduct a scoping review of the empirical literature to explore methods or tools used to improve the efficiency of SR production. The second objective is to map identified methods and tools against various context factors, such as informing clinical decisions or public health policy decisions, regarding their validity and applicability.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

23. Predicting factors for studies falsely excluded during single-reviewer screening

Author

Affengruber, Lisa, Emprechtinger, Robert, Kleijnen, Jos, and Gartlehner, Gerald

Subjects
Rapid Review, Single Screening, False exclusion, Medicine and Health Sciences, nutritional and metabolic diseases, nervous system diseases
Abstract

To identify predicting factors on study-, abstract- and journal-level of studies falsely excluded during single-reviewer abstract screening.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

24. Randomized controlled trial participants receiving the intervention assigned to the comparator arm: a meta-epidemiological study (Meta-crowd)

Author

Kreuzberger, Nina, Goldkuhle, Marius, Skoetz, Nicole, Lischetzki, Tina, Affengruber, Lisa, Akl, Elie, Braun, Cordula, van Dalen, Elvira, Ernst, Moritz, Hirt, Julian, Klugar, Miloslav, Mathes, Tim, Menges, Dominik, Messer, Melanie, Monsef, Ina, Mustafa, Reem, Rombey, Tanja, Siemens, Waldemar, Trivella, Marialena, Vetsch, Janine, and Hemkens, Lars

Subjects
Statistics and Probability, Methods systematic review, Public health, Meta-epidemiology, Physical Sciences and Mathematics, Medicine and Health Sciences, Meta-crowd, Randomized controlled trials, Health sciences, Clinical Trials, FOS: Health sciences, Statistical Methodology
Abstract

Participants of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) sometimes receive the intervention (e.g., a drug or drug combination, surgical procedure, behavioral program, screening intervention etc.) initially allocated to a respective comparator arm (i.e., participants in the intervention group receive the control group’s intervention and vice versa). Reasons for the reception of a comparator intervention are manifold; they include patient-related, practical and/or ethical issues. However, such changes may affect the interpretation of the comparisons and the translation of study results into clinical practice (e.g., through clinical guidelines). The aim of the current methodological review is to i) explore and assess the frequency of trial participants in the control arm receiving the intervention planned for intervention arm and vice versa in recent RCTs and the modalities of this practice (e.g., reasons, decision criteria, pre-specification and awareness to allocation of participants and personnel); and ii) to identify similarities and differences in trials across intervention types and clinical fields.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

30. Additional file 2 of Characteristics and recovery methods of studies falsely excluded during literature screening—a systematic review

Author

Affengruber, Lisa, Dobrescu, Andreea, Persad, Emma, Klerings, Irma, Wagner, Gernot, Sommer, Isolde, and Gartlehner, Gerald

Abstract

Additional file 2. Search strategy for Medline, Science Citation Index Expanded, Social Sciences Citation Index, Current Contents Connect, Embase, Epistemonikos.org, and Information Science & Technology Abstracts.

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

35. The accuracy of single- versus dual-reviewer abstract screening: a crowd-based randomized controlled trial

Author

Gartlehner, Gerald and Affengruber, Lisa

Subjects
ddc: 610, 610 Medical sciences, Medicine
Abstract

Background/research question: To determine the accuracy of single-reviewer screening in correctly classifying abstracts as relevant or irrelevant for literature reviews. Methods: Crowd-based, parallel-group randomized controlled trial. Using computer-generated simple randomization, Cochrane[for full text, please go to the a.m. URL], Nützliche patientenrelevante Forschung; 21. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

36. Additional file 2 of Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

Author

Affengruber, Lisa, Wagner, Gernot, Waffenschmidt, Siw, Lhachimi, Stefan K., Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Thaler, Kylie, Griebler, Ursula, Klerings, Irma, and Gartlehner, Gerald

Subjects
InformationSystems_INFORMATIONSTORAGEANDRETRIEVAL, ComputingMethodologies_DOCUMENTANDTEXTPROCESSING, ComputingMilieux_COMPUTERSANDEDUCATION, Data_FILES, ComputerApplications_COMPUTERSINOTHERSYSTEMS
Abstract

Additional file 2. Supplementary tables

Published
2020
Full Text
View/download PDF

40. Evaluation of the 'H2NOE Water Schools' programme to promote water consumption in elementary schoolchildren: a non-randomised controlled cluster trial.

Author

Griebler, Ursula, Titscher, Viktoria, Weber, Michael, and Affengruber, Lisa

Subjects
SCHOOL children, WATER bottles, SCHOOL year, TIME measurements, ELEMENTARY schools, DRINKING water, WATER consumption, BEVERAGES, RESEARCH, CLINICAL trials, RESEARCH methodology, EVALUATION research, COMPARATIVE studies, DIGESTION, SCHOOLS, HEALTH promotion
Abstract

Objective: This study evaluated a simple environmental intervention called 'Water Schools' in Lower Austria providing free refillable water bottles and educational material.Design: Non-randomised controlled cluster trial with three measurements: at baseline (T0), after the intervention at 9 months (T1) and after 1-year follow-up (T2).Setting: Half-day elementary schools in Lower Austria (Austria).Participants: Third-grade pupils from twenty-two schools in the intervention group (IG) and thirty-two schools in the control group (CG) participated in the study. Data were analysed for 569 to 598 pupils in the IG and for 545 to 613 in the CG, depending on the time of measurement.Results: The consumption of tap water increased in the IG from baseline to T1 and then decreased again at T2, but this was similar in the CG (no statistically significant difference in the time trend between the IG and CG). Similar results were seen for tap water consumption in the mornings. The proportion of children who only drank tap water on school mornings increased significantly from baseline to T1 in the IG compared to the CG (P = 0·020). No difference in the changes over time occurred between the groups for the proportion of pupils drinking approximately one bottle of tap water during school mornings.Conclusions: Not only the children in the IG but also those in the CG drank more tap water after 1 school year than at the beginning. The measurement of drinking habits in the CG may have been intervention enough to bring about changes or to initiate projects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Published
2022
Full Text
View/download PDF

42. Rapid Reviews im deutschsprachigen Raum: aktuelle Entwicklungen

Author

Buchberger, Barbara, Affengruber, Lisa, Fuchs, Sabine, Stephani, Victor, and Eikermann, Michaela

Subjects
Epidemiologie, ddc: 610, 610 Medical sciences, Medicine, Biometrie
Abstract

Kurze Beschreibung des geplanten Inhalts: Die Dringlichkeit vieler Fragen im Gesundheitswesen macht eine Beschleunigung des klassischen systematischen Review-Verfahrens notwendig, das üblicherweise zwischen einem halben und einem Jahr, aber oft auch länger dauert und je nach Fragestellung [zum vollständigen Text gelangen Sie über die oben angegebene URL], EbM und Digitale Transformation in der Medizin; 20. Jahrestagung des Deutschen Netzwerks Evidenzbasierte Medizin

Published
2018
Full Text
View/download PDF

44. Assessing the Accuracy of Machine-Assisted Abstract Screening With DistillerAI: A User Study

Author

Gartlehner G, Wagner G, Lux L, Affengruber L, Dobrescu A, Kaminski-Hartenthaler A, and Viswanathan M

Abstract

Background: Web applications that employ natural language processing technologies such as text mining and text classification to support systematic reviewers during abstract screening have become more user friendly and more common. Such semi-automated screening tools can increase efficiency by reducing the number of abstracts needed to screen or by replacing one screener after adequately training the algorithm of the machine. Savings in workload between 30 percent and 70 percent might be possible with the use of such tools. The goal of our project was to conduct a case study to explore a screening approach that temporarily replaces a human screener with a semi-automated screening tool., Methods: To address our objective, we evaluated the accuracy of a machine-assisted screening approach using an Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality comparative effectiveness review as the reference standard. We chose DistillerAI as a semi-automated screening tool for our project, applying its naïve Bayesian machine-learning option. Five teams screened the same 2,472 abstracts in parallel, using the machine-assisted approach. Each team trained DistillerAI with 300 randomly selected abstracts that the team screened dually. For the remaining 2,172 abstracts, DistillerAI replaced one human screener in each team and provided predictions about the relevance of records. We used a prediction score of 0.5 (i.e., inconclusive) or greater to classify a record as an inclusion. A single reviewer also screened all remaining abstracts. A second human screener resolved conflicts between the single reviewer and DistillerAI. We compared the decisions of the machine-assisted approach, single-reviewer screening (i.e., no machine assistance), and screening with DistillerAI alone (i.e., no human involvement after training) against the reference standard and calculated sensitivities, specificities, and the area under the receiver operating characteristics curve. In addition, we determined the interrater agreement, the proportion of included abstracts, and the number of conflicts between human screeners and DistillerAI., Results: The mean sensitivity of the machine-assisted screening approach across the five screening teams was 78 percent (95% confidence interval [CI], 66% to 90%), and the mean specificity was 95 percent (95% CI, 92% to 97%). By comparison, the sensitivity of single-reviewer screening was also 78 percent (95% CI, 66% to 89%); the sensitivity of DistillerAI alone was 14 percent (95% CI, 0% to 31%). Specificities for single-reviewer screening and DistillerAI alone were 94 percent (95% CI, 91% to 97%) and 98 percent (95% CI, 97% to 100%), respectively. Machine-assisted screening and single-reviewer screening had similar areas under the curve (0.87 and 0.86, respectively); by contrast, the area under the curve for DistillerAI alone was just slightly better than chance (0.56). The interrater agreement between human screeners and DistillerAI with a prevalence-adjusted kappa was 0.85 (95% CI, 0.84 to 0.86)., Discussion: Findings of our study indicate that the accuracy of DistillerAI is not yet adequate to replace a human screener temporarily during abstract screening. The approach that we tested missed too many relevant studies and created too many conflicts between human screeners and DistillerAI. Rapid reviews, which do not require detecting the totality of the relevant evidence, may find semi-automation tools to have greater utility than traditional systematic reviews.

Published
2019

Catalog

Books, media, physical & digital resources
See catalog results