4.6 Article

Systematic reviewers used various approaches to data extraction and expressed several research needs: a survey

Journal

JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY
Volume 159, Issue -, Pages 214-224

Publisher

ELSEVIER SCIENCE INC
DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.027

Keywords

Systematic review; Meta-analysis; Information storage and retrieval; Automation; Health technology assessment; Data analysis

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This study surveyed systematic reviewers on their current approaches to data extraction and found limited guidance and knowledge on current methods. Results showed that 65% of respondents used adapted extraction forms, and 62% used newly developed forms. Independent and duplicate extraction was considered the most appropriate approach by 64% of respondents. Furthermore, 60% of respondents suggested research on the effects of different methods on error rates and the use of data extraction support tools.
Objective: Data extraction is a prerequisite for analyzing, summarizing, and interpreting evidence in systematic reviews. Yet guidance is limited, and little is known about current approaches. We surveyed systematic reviewers on their current approaches to data extraction, opinions on methods, and research needs.Study Design and Setting: We developed a 29-question online survey and distributed it through relevant organizations, social media, and personal networks in 2022. Closed questions were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and open questions were analyzed using con-tent analysis.Results: 162 reviewers participated. Use of adapted (65%) or newly developed extraction forms (62%) was common. Generic forms were rarely used (14%). Spreadsheet software was the most popular extraction tool (83%). Piloting was reported by 74% of respondents and included a variety of approaches. Independent and duplicate extraction was considered the most appropriate approach to data collection (64%). About half of respondents agreed that blank forms and/or raw data should be published. Suggested research gaps were the effects of different methods on error rates (60%) and the use of data extraction support tools (46%).Conclusion: Systematic reviewers used varying approaches to pilot data extraction. Methods to reduce errors and use of support tools such as (semi-)automation tools are top research gaps.& COPY; 2023 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.6
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available