Such methods would reduce the effort for data extraction. All authors read and approved the final manuscript. No studies on reviewer training were identified. Thus, the evidence base for the established standards of data extraction seems sparse because the actual benefit of a certain extraction method (e.g. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Chip-off is an invasive method typically used as a last resort because it, quite literally, requires the memory ''chip'' to be taken off of the device to be analyzed. The wide range of agreement between different extraction methods suggests that some studies are more difficult to extract than others [9]. TM: idea for the review, study selection, data extraction, interpretation of results, writing of manuscript. First, we included articles on the frequency of data extraction errors. Tips for Teachers: Helping Students Struggling with Online Learning. Evaluating data abstraction assistant, a novel software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. The application of methods that require less effort without threating the internal validity would result in a more efficient utilization of scientific manpower. | {{course.flashcardSetCount}} We searched all PubMed databases and the Cochrane Methodology Register (12/2016). Cookies policy. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. All authors reviewed the final manuscript and consented for publication. 2007;298(4):430–7. Zheng SL, Chan FT, Maclean E, Jayakumar S, Nabeebaccus AA. Special software is used to read the extracted chip, and the data moved from the chip to a computer in search of potential pieces of evidence. [15] included in both analysis). Springer Nature. volume 17, Article number: 152 (2017) The eight methods yielded significantly different quantities of DNA (p < 0.001), with the phenol-chloroform extraction method producing the highest total yield. All rights reserved. We introduced three methods and discussed the theories. The database was three systematic reviews on the same topic that included the same studies (N = 8). 2020 © Joanna Briggs Institute. There are 3 levels of credibility as described below, and reviewers should document in this section of their review report HOW the decision was made to allocate these levels, and what (if any) issues arose during the process, or whether there was good agreement between the review team members. Google Scholar. If possible, we distinguished data extraction errors in accuracy (e.g. DP: idea for the review, study selection, verification of data extraction, interpretation of results. Privacy 1). The reference standard was data extraction by two independent reviewers. The search terms describing our research question were very unspecific (e.g. Data extraction builds the basis for the results and conclusion in a SR. Also reviewers who are familiar with a variety of statistical methods may not be aware of more advanced statistical methods (e.g. Differences in pooled effect estimates were small (difference of relative risk, range: 0.01–0.05). The reduction of time and effort is especially relevant for rapid reviews because this form of evidence synthesis aims timely preparation while remaining systematic [21]. The generalizability of the results is therefore unclear. Reviewers’ manual: 2011 edition. Two types of articles were eligible. Each included article was summarized in a structured narrative way. credit-by-exam regardless of age or education level. Article  Syst Rev. tools to classify statistical complexity). © copyright 2003-2020 Study.com. At the level of meta-analysis the difference in standardized mean difference (SMD) was at least 1 in one of ten meta-analyses. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. PK: study selection. In case of discrepancies, we discussed eligibility until consensus. Once connected, we send a. Chip-off: The second physical acquisition technique is a process known as chip-off. …and systematic. Thus, clarifying which methods can reduce the time required for preparation without significantly increasing the risk of bias would also contribute to better control the short cuts in rapid reviews. 2013;258(6):872–8. There is a high prevalence of extraction errors. According to the study authors “all data-handling errors led to changes in the summary results, but none of them affected review conclusions” [17]. All studies (studies on error frequency and comparative studies) had to report a quantitative measure for data extraction errors (e.g. Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews.National Academies Press; 2011. In 63% of meta-analysis at least one of the two trials were erroneous. In particular, studies investigating training for data extraction are needed because there is no such analysis, to date. Cite this article. Each finding extracted is to be accompanied by an illustration from the same text that informs the finding.