Study Selection. Formatted: Right: 0.63 cm
Study Selection. The candidate screened all titles and abstracts in the electronic databases. The abstracts of potentially eligible articles were saved in Endnote. Bibliographic references from these articles were systematically searched. Eligible records then had a full text screening by two reviewers and were promoted to the next stage of the process by categorising as ‘yes’, ‘no’ or ‘maybe’. The next stage was to have a consensus meeting and to call in expert opinions as to whether any ‘maybe’ records should be included in the review.
Study Selection. Those papers that were identified through the peer-reviewed literature database search, a report generated including title and abstract for each paper. These papers were assessed by external reviewers and me. Papers that were deemed eligible and relevant were included for full-text review stage. At this stage, external reviewer and I screened full-text papers to make final decision whether included papers met the inclusion criteria.
Study Selection. An independent reviewer (ZL) performed the systematic electronic searches in all the databases. ZL also identified and removed the duplicate studies. The independent reviewer then carried out the screening of the titles/abstracts and identifying the full text articles. One author [JMacD] randomly reviewed 50% of the articles and discussed the disagreement with the first author to determine the final article eligibility.
Study Selection. 34.1 Studies will be discussed and evaluated at either a face-to-face meeting or teleconference of Members.
34.2 In the event of an impasse – further discussion and open voting may be undertaken should Members agree.
34.3 Potential Studies will be judged based on scientific merit, projected impact, and feasibility. Early Consortium Studies will prioritize feasibility.
34.4 A “Consortium Study” shall denote a proposal that achieves majority vote during voting procedures by the Members. A Study may then be considered appropriate to begin or set aside for future launching.
34.5 The number of contemporaneous Studies supported by the Consortium will be dependent on the anticipated capacity of participating Institutions and will be revisited annually by the Steering Committee and Board of Directors.
34.6 The Study Principal Investigator of each Study will be required to provide the Chairperson and Steering Committee a semi-annual progress report, emphasizing adherence to timelines.
34.7 All ongoing Studies will be reviewed annually by the Steering Committee and Board of Directors.
Study Selection. The search strategy returned 2627 titles and abstracts. After removal of 797 duplicates, 1830 titles and abstracts were screened and 96 full text papers were assessed for inclusion. 17 studies met the inclusion criteria (see summary in Figure 1 PRISMA Flow chart). Identification 2627 titles identified through database searching 797 duplicates removed Screening 1830 abstracts and titles screened 1737 excluded as not relevant 96 full text papers assessed for inclusion 17 unique studies in final analysis Excluded papers:
Study Selection. Eligibility assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. Titles and abstracts of articles identified from the systematic search were examined in relation to the relevance to the topic and duplicates were removed at this stage. The full texts of articles were then screened to identify whether or not they were eligible, and those not meeting the inclusion criteria were excluded at this stage, leaving a final number of studies for inclusion in the systematic review. Data were extracted from the reports by two independent reviewers (KB and KA) to minimise reporting bias. Authors of the included articles were contacted directly if questions arose about the reported data. A search protocol data sheet was developed and used to extract all important and relevant information from the studies. Detailed information was extracted from each of the studies, primarily on the characteristics of the participants (such as gender, age, and ethnicity, if available), the characteristics of the intervention (including format, type, presentation and delivery mode of the risk information) and comparison groups, and the types of outcome measures assessed (including screening outcomes and psychological predictors of screening outcomes).
Study Selection. Eligibility assessment was performed independently by two reviewers. Disagreements between reviewers (KB and KA) were resolved in a discussion. Figure 1 shows the PRISMA flow diagram of study selection. The systematic search revealed a total of 7408 articles. Each article title and abstract was examined in relation to the relevance to the topic, which resulted in a list of 107 articles retained at this stage. The full texts of articles were then read to identify whether or not they met the inclusion criteria, and 86 studies were excluded at this stage, with a total of 21 articles being chosen as relevant. 7408 records identified through database searching 3 additional records identified through other sources 21 studies included in qualitative synthesis 89 full‐text articles excluded 12 = not an RCT 37 = not individualised risk 5 = not looking at screening 7 = protocol/ conference abstract 28 = pre-2006 110 full‐text articles assessed for eligibility 5948 records excluded 6058 records screened 6058 records after duplicates removed
Study Selection. Using index database searches as well as snowballing and handsearching methods, a total of 205 publications were initially identified to adequately address this thesis’ research objectives. Thirty-one of these publications were eliminated through the duplication screening process. The titles and abstracts (when available) of the remaining 174 publications were evaluated for relevancy according to Table 3.2 Systematic Review Eligibility Inclusion/ Exclusion Criteria. This latter process eliminated 111 publications. An additional eligibility inclusion/exclusion criteria screening was conducted on the full-text of the remaining 63 publications, also using Table 3.
