Systematic literature reviews (SLRs) provide an important evidence base for decision-making in healthcare. A truly systematic approach mandates considering the entire set of eligible evidence for extraction and reporting which can make these reviews extremely time- and resource-intensive given that the quantum of literature has been growing at a rapid pace. In resource-constrained settings, and for certain types of SLRs, one option is to consider “third screening” (or “prioritisation”) based on a certain pre-specified criteria in order to narrow down the eligible universe of studies (per the PICOS) to the highest-quality studies only. However, one may question the validity of this additional screening step and its subsequent implications while drawing conclusions. Focusing on a sub-type of SLRs that examines disease burden and unmet need using observational/real-world data, we present summary findings of an analysis to determine if the prioritised set of studies selected during third screening can provide a good representation of the overall universe of eligible studies without compromising validity.
Link to White Paper