title: Dual computer monitors to increase efficiency of conducting systematic reviews.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Systematic reviews (SRs) are the cornerstone of evidence-based medicine. In this study, we evaluated the effectiveness of using two computer screens on the efficiency of conducting SRs.
  
  
  METHODS
  A cohort of reviewers before and after using dual monitors were compared with a control group that did not use dual monitors. The outcomes were time spent for abstract screening, full-text screening and data extraction, and inter-rater agreement. We adopted multivariate difference-in-differences linear regression models.
  
  
  RESULTS
  A total of 60 SRs conducted by 54 reviewers were included in this analysis. We found a significant reduction of 23.81 minutes per article in data extraction in the intervention group relative to the control group (95% confidence interval: -46.03, -1.58, P = 0.04), which was a 36.85% reduction in time. There was no significant difference in time spent on abstract screening, full-text screening, or inter-rater agreement between the two groups.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Using dual monitors when conducting SRs is associated with significant reduction of time spent on data extraction. No significant difference was observed on time spent on abstract screening or full-text screening. Using dual monitors is one strategy that may improve the efficiency of conducting SRs.
authors.affiliation: Knowledge & Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55904, USA. Electronic address: zhenw.cn@gmail.com.
authors.forename: Zhen
authors.initials: Z
authors.lastname: Wang
authors.affiliation: Knowledge & Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55904, USA.
authors.forename: Noor
authors.initials: N
authors.lastname: Asi
authors.affiliation: Knowledge & Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55904, USA.
authors.forename: Tarig A
authors.initials: TA
authors.lastname: Elraiyah
authors.affiliation: Knowledge & Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55904, USA.
authors.forename: Abd Moain
authors.initials: AM
authors.lastname: Abu Dabrh
authors.affiliation: Knowledge & Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55904, USA.
authors.forename: Chaitanya
authors.initials: C
authors.lastname: Undavalli
authors.affiliation: Centre for Research in Evidence-Based Practice, Faculty of Health Sciences and Medicine, Bond University, Queensland 4229, Australia.
authors.forename: Paul
authors.initials: P
authors.lastname: Glasziou
authors.affiliation: Knowledge & Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55904, USA.
authors.forename: Victor
authors.initials: V
authors.lastname: Montori
authors.affiliation: Knowledge & Evaluation Research Unit, Mayo Clinic, 200 First Street SW, Rochester, MN 55904, USA.
authors.forename: Mohammad Hassan
authors.initials: MH
authors.lastname: Murad
mesh_terms: D016288:Computer Terminals / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D057225:Data Mining / Q000706:statistics & numerical data*; D004526:Efficiency; D006801:Humans; D016014:Linear Models; D012196:Review Literature as Topic; D013997:Time Factors
keywords: Efficiency; Evidence-based medicine; Research design; Systematic reviews; Technology; Validity