2017
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.11.019
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Commentary on EPC methods: an exploration of the use of text-mining software in systematic reviews

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
2
2
1

Citation Types

0
43
0

Year Published

2017
2017
2020
2020

Publication Types

Select...
6

Relationship

0
6

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 34 publications
(43 citation statements)
references
References 5 publications
0
43
0
Order By: Relevance
“…Jonnalagadda et al focused on automating data extraction, whereas the other review, O'Mara‐Eves et al, aimed at presenting research on using text mining for study identification . In April 2016, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality published a “research white paper” exploring the use of text mining tools, including screening tools, in the systematic review process …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
See 1 more Smart Citation
“…Jonnalagadda et al focused on automating data extraction, whereas the other review, O'Mara‐Eves et al, aimed at presenting research on using text mining for study identification . In April 2016, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality published a “research white paper” exploring the use of text mining tools, including screening tools, in the systematic review process …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Our evaluation is, to our knowledge, the first evaluation of Rayyan done by independent users. Paynter et al mentioned Rayyan in the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality research white paper, but no evaluation was done …”
Section: Introductionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Ultimately, they categorised documents according to these annotations. Thus, combining text mining methods for systematic review is a hot topic [72][73][74][75].…”
Section: Methods Analysismentioning
confidence: 99%
“…Paynter et al undertook an overview of text mining tools and techniques in systematic reviews and identified 111 tools, of which 52 support searching. They concluded that “although it seems promising, text mining has not become a standard tool for creating systematic review search strategies” (p. 13) and noted that one possible limitation was that many tools have been developed based upon output from PubMed or Medline.…”
Section: Background and Aimsmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…There seems to be a paucity of published literature on text‐mining procedures for identifying free‐text and controlled terms for specific databases using generic tools, although EUnetHTA and Gourlay provide some guidance on obtaining term frequencies. Controlled vocabularies can also be analysed using database specific tools, particularly for Medline and PubMed, and these are listed elsewhere , . However, there is little guidance on using the variety of text mining tools available to complement other methods to identify search terms for undertaking systematic reviews.…”
Section: Background and Aimsmentioning
confidence: 99%