Table 4.
Performance of the Rapid Medical Evidence Synthesis (RMES) filters: selection success ratesa.
| Systematic review | Filter 1: study type | Filter 2: study type + disease | Filter 3: study type + intervention | Filter 4: study type + disease + intervention |
| Zengerling et al [28] (n=16), n (%) | 12 (75) | 12 (75) | 9 (56.3) | 9 (56.3) |
| Ferrara et al [29] (n=8), n (%) | 8 (100) | 3 (37.5) | 7 (87.5) | 3 (37.5) |
| Safi et al [30] (n=44), n (%) | 36 (81.8) | 15 (34.1) | 25 (56.8) | 11 (25) |
| Sethi et al [31] (n=46), n (%) | 40 (87) | 30 (65.2) | 37 (80.4) | 28 (60.9) |
| Roaldsen et al [32] (n=5), n (%) | 5 (100) | 4 (80) | 4 (80) | 3 (60) |
| Martí-Carvajal et al [33] (n=7), n (%) | 5 (71.4) | 5 (71.4) | 5 (71.4) | 5 (71.4) |
| Wang et al [34] (n=11), n (%) | 11 (100) | 7 (63.6) | 11 (100) | 7 (63.6) |
| Musini et al [35] (n=11), n (%) | 11 (100) | 9 (81.8) | 11 (100) | 9 (81.8) |
| Hemmingsen et al [36] (n=46), n (%) | 34 (73.9) | 30 (65.2) | 32 (69.5) | 30 (65.2) |
| Gnesin et al [37] (n=7), n (%) | 4 (57.1) | 4 (57.1) | 4 (57.1) | 4 (57.1) |
| Burckhardt et al [38] (n=4), n (%) | 3 (75) | 3 (75) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) |
| Showell et al [39] (n=40), n (%) | 32 (80) | 14 (35) | 15 (37.5) | 6 (15) |
| Overall performance, median (range) | 80.9% (57.1%-100%) | 65.2% (34.1%-81.8%) | 70.5% (0%-100%) | 58.6% (0%-81.8%) |
aTables S2A-S2L in Multimedia Appendix 1 show the search queries used for each systematic review. Table S3 in Multimedia Appendix 1 shows the filters applied for each review. Tables S4A-S4L in Multimedia Appendix 1 list the articles analyzed using RMES. Table S5 in Multimedia Appendix 1 shows the number of articles excluded by each filter, number of articles selected by the filter (for manual screening), and the reduction rates.