Powered by the Evidence-based Practice Centers
Evidence Reports All of EHC
Evidence Reports All of EHC



Machine Learning Methods in Systematic Reviews: Identifying Quality Improvement Intervention Evaluations

Research Report Sep 21, 2012
Download PDF files for this report here.

Page Contents

People using assistive technology may not be able to fully access information in these files. For additional assistance, please contact us.

Structured Abstract


Electronic searches typically yield far more citations than are relevant, and reviewers spend a substantial amount of time screening titles and abstracts to identify potential studies eligible for inclusion in a review. This is of particular relevance in complex research fields such as quality improvement. We tested a semiautomated literature screening process applied to the title and abstract screening stage of systematic reviews. A machine learning approach may allow literature reviewers to screen only a fraction of a search output and to use a predictive model to learn and then emulate the reviewers’ decisions. Once learned, the model can apply the selection process to an essentially unlimited number of citations.


Two independent literature reviewers screened 1,591 quasi-randomly selected citations in a training dataset used to predict decisions on the remaining citations in a MEDLINE search output of 9,395 citations. We explored different prediction algorithms and tested results against reference samples screened by experts in quality improvement. Qualitative (relevance cutoff determined in ROC curve) and quantitative predictions (probability rank order of citations) were determined.


The agreement between independent literature reviewers ranged from κ= 0.55 to 0.57. Across two reference samples, the predictive performance of the machine learning approach demonstrated 90.1 percent sensitivity, 43.9 percent specificity, and 32.1 percent PPV. This translates to a reduction of 36.1 percent in citation screening if applied. The predictive performance was affected by reviewer disagreements: a subgroup analysis restricted to citations both reviewers agreed on showed a sensitivity of 98.8 percent (specificity 43.9 percent).


Machine learning approaches may assist in the title and abstract inclusion screening process in systematic reviews of complex, steadily expanding research fields such as quality improvement. Increased reviewer agreement appeared to be associated with improved predictive performance.

Project Timeline

Machine Learning Methods in Systematic Reviews: Identifying Quality Improvement Intervention Evaluations

Sep 20, 2012
Topic Initiated
Sep 21, 2012
Research Report
Page last reviewed January 2019
Page originally created November 2017

Internet Citation: Research Report: Machine Learning Methods in Systematic Reviews: Identifying Quality Improvement Intervention Evaluations. Content last reviewed January 2019. Effective Health Care Program, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD.

Select to copy citation