Skip to main content

Table 3 Cross tabulation showing the number of studies employing certain research designs by the aspects of text mining that were compared (n= 44)

From: Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches

What aspect of text mining was compared Retrospective simulation Prospective—case study Prospective—controlled trial Prospective—other Total—what was compared
Classifiers/ algorithms 13 0 0 3 16
Number of features 2 0 0 0 2
Feature extraction/sets (e.g., BoW) 8 0 0 2 10
Views (e.g., T&A, MeSH) 5 0 0 1 6
Training set size 2 0 0 0 2
Kernels 2 0 0 0 2
Topic specific versus general training data 3 0 0 1 4
Other optimisations 9 0 0 4 13
No comparison 5 5 4 1  
Totalstudy design (duplicates removed) (27) (5) (4) (8)  
  1. Note. Many studies compared more than one aspect of text mining, therefore column total for ‘Totalwhat was compared’ sums to greater than 44. The row for ‘Totalstudy design (duplicates removed)’ shows the number of studies of each design type rather than the column totals, as the column totals would include duplications of the same studies that compared multiple aspects of text mining technologies.