Interrater Reliability in Systematic Review Methodology: Exploring Variation in Coder Decision-Making
Abstract
A methodologically sound systematic review is characterized by transparency, replicability, and a clear inclusion criterion. However, little attention has been paid to reporting the details of interrater reliability (IRR) when multiple coders are used to make decisions at various points in the screening and data extraction stages of a study. Prior research has mentioned the paucity of information on IRR including number of coders involved, at what stages and how IRR tests were conducted, and how disagreements were resolved. This article examines and reflects on the human factors that affect decision-making in systematic reviews via reporting on three IRR tests, conducted at three different points in the screening process, for two distinct reviews. Results of the two studies are discussed in the context of IRR and intrarater reliability in terms of the accuracy, precision, and reliability of coding behavior of multiple coders. Findings indicated that coding behavior changes both between and within individuals over time, emphasizing the importance of conducting regular and systematic IRR and intrarater reliability tests, especially when multiple coders are involved, to ensure consistency and clarity at the screening and coding stages. Implications for good practice while screening/coding for systematic reviews are discussed.
How strong is the evidence?
Evidence Hub reads this as a systematic review. Its evidence level is 1 of 5 (Highest · pooled evidence). Pooled evidence from several studies sits at the top of the evidence pyramid.
Read the paper
Related studies
- Regulation of nucleolus assembly by non-coding RNA polymerase II transcripts
- For a Healthy Histone Code, a Little SUMO in the Tail Keeps the Acetyl Away
- Discovering a binary CTCF code with a little help from BORIS
- Article Commentary: Stabilizing the Code–-Methods to Preserve RNA Prove Their Worth
- Foreword to the Special Issue for the RINTC (The Implicit Seismic Risk of Code-Conforming Structures) Project
- Commentary: Promoting Health and Well-being in Pediatric Primary Care Settings: Using Health and Behavior Codes at Routine Well-child Visits
Go deeper in Evidence Hub
Evidence Hub adds a study data sheet (design, sample size, evidence level, key numbers), an AI summary and a chat grounded in the paper's text.