Due to necessary scheduled maintenance, the JMIR Publications website will be unavailable from Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 8:00 PM to 10:00 PM EST. We apologize in advance for any inconvenience this may cause you.
Who will be affected?
Readers: No access to all 28 journals. We recommend accessing our articles via PubMed Central
Authors: No access to the submission form or your user account.
Reviewers: No access to your user account. Please download manuscripts you are reviewing for offline reading before Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 7:00 PM.
Editors: No access to your user account to assign reviewers or make decisions.
Copyeditors: No access to user account. Please download manuscripts you are copyediting before Wednesday, July 01, 2020 at 7:00 PM.
Sugiura A, Saegusa S, Jin Y, Yoshimoto R, Smith ND, Dohi K, Higuchi T, Kozu T
Evaluation of RMES, an Automated Software Tool Utilizing AI, for Literature Screening with Reference to Published Systematic Reviews as Case-Studies: Development and Usability Study
Evaluation of Rapid Medical Evidence Synthesis (RMES), an Automated Software Tool Utilizing Artificial Intelligence, for Literature Screening with Reference to Published Systematic Reviews as Case-Studies
Ayaka Sugiura;
Satoshi Saegusa;
Yingzi Jin;
Riki Yoshimoto;
Nicholas D. Smith;
Koji Dohi;
Tadashi Higuchi;
Tomotake Kozu
ABSTRACT
Background:
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses are important to evidence-based medicine (EBM), but the information retrieval and literature screening procedures are time-consuming tasks. Rapid Medical Evidence Synthesis (RMES) is a software designed to support information retrieval, literature screening, and data extraction for EBM.
Objective:
Our objective was to evaluate the accuracy of RMES for literature screening with reference to published systematic reviews.
Methods:
We used RMES to automatically screen the titles and abstracts of PubMed-indexed articles included in 12 systematic reviews across six medical fields, by applying four filters: (1) study type; (2) study type + disease; (3) study type + intervention; and (4) study type + disease + intervention. We determined the numbers of articles correctly included by each filter relative to those included by the authors of each systematic review. Only PubMed-indexed articles were assessed.
Results:
Across the 12 reviews, the number of articles analyzed by RMES ranged from 46 to 5612. The number of PubMed-cited articles included in the reviews ranged from 4 to 47. The median (range) percentage of articles correctly labeled by RMES using filters 1–4 were: 80.9% (57.1%–100.0%), 65.2% (34.1%–81.8%), 70.5% (0.0%–100.0%), and 58.6% (0.0%–81.8%), respectively.
Conclusions:
This study demonstrated good performance and accuracy of RMES for the initial screening of the titles and abstracts of articles for use in systematic reviews. RMES has the potential to reduce the workload and time involved in the initial screening of published studies.
Citation
Please cite as:
Sugiura A, Saegusa S, Jin Y, Yoshimoto R, Smith ND, Dohi K, Higuchi T, Kozu T
Evaluation of RMES, an Automated Software Tool Utilizing AI, for Literature Screening with Reference to Published Systematic Reviews as Case-Studies: Development and Usability Study