Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software

被引:2
作者
Afifi, Mohamed [1 ,2 ]
Stryhn, Henrik [2 ]
Sanchez, Javier [2 ]
机构
[1] Zagazig Univ, Fac Vet Med, Dept Anim Wealth Dev, Biostat Sect, Zagazig 44519, Ash Sharqia Gov, Egypt
[2] Univ Prince Edward Isl, Atlantic Vet Coll, Dept Hlth Management, Charlottetown, PE C1A 4P3, Canada
基金
加拿大自然科学与工程研究理事会;
关键词
Data extraction; Database; Guideline; Complex; Systematic review; Epi Info; R; EPI INFO; MANAGEMENT; FRAMEWORK; ERRORS;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-023-02322-1
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
1002 ; 100201 ;
摘要
BackgroundData extraction (DE) is a challenging step in systematic reviews (SRs). Complex SRs can involve multiple interventions and/or outcomes and encompass multiple research questions. Attempts have been made to clarify DE aspects focusing on the subsequent meta-analysis; there are, however, no guidelines for DE in complex SRs. Comparing datasets extracted independently by pairs of reviewers to detect discrepancies is also cumbersome, especially when the number of extracted variables and/or studies is colossal. This work aims to provide a set of practical steps to help SR teams design and build DE tools and compare extracted data for complex SRs.MethodsWe provided a 10-step guideline, from determining data items and structure to data comparison, to help identify discrepancies and solve data disagreements between reviewers. The steps were organised into three phases: planning and building the database and data manipulation. Each step was described and illustrated with examples, and relevant references were provided for further guidance. A demonstration example was presented to illustrate the application of Epi Info and R in the database building and data manipulation phases. The proposed guideline was also summarised and compared with previous DE guidelines.ResultsThe steps of this guideline are described generally without focusing on a particular software application or meta-analysis technique. We emphasised determining the organisational data structure and highlighted its role in the subsequent steps of database building. In addition to the minimal programming skills needed, creating relational databases and data validation features of Epi info can be utilised to build DE tools for complex SRs. However, two R libraries are needed to facilitate data comparison and solve discrepancies.ConclusionsWe hope adopting this guideline can help review teams construct DE tools that suit their complex review projects. Although Epi Info depends on proprietary software for data storage, it can still be a potential alternative to other commercial DE software for completing complex reviews.
引用
收藏
页数:14
相关论文
共 62 条
  • [21] Dalhousie University Librarians, 2020, Knowledge syntheses: a how-to guide data extraction
  • [22] Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews
    E, Jian-Yu
    Saldanha, Ian J.
    Canner, Joseph
    Schmid, Christopher H.
    Le, Jimmy T.
    Li, Tianjing
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2020, 11 (03) : 354 - 362
  • [23] Eckstein J, 2017, Introductory relational database design for business, P53
  • [24] Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity
    Elamin, Mohamed B.
    Flynn, David N.
    Bassler, Dirk
    Briel, Matthias
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Karanicolas, Paul Jack
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    Malaga, German
    Furukawa, Toshiaki A.
    Kunz, Regina
    Schuenemann, Holger
    Murad, Mohammad Hassan
    Barbui, Corrado
    Cipriani, Andrea
    Montori, Victor M.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2009, 62 (05) : 506 - 510
  • [25] Evidence L., 2022, Doctor Evidence
  • [26] Evidence Partners O Canada, 2022, DistillerSR
  • [27] An Innovative Database for Epidemiological Field Studies of Neglected Tropical Diseases
    Gray, Darren J.
    Forsyth, Simon J.
    Li, Robert S.
    McManus, Donald P.
    Li, YueSheng
    Chen, Honggen
    Zheng, Feng
    Williams, Gail M.
    [J]. PLOS NEGLECTED TROPICAL DISEASES, 2009, 3 (05): : e413
  • [28] GRADE guidelines: 8. Rating the quality of evidence-indirectness
    Guyatt, Gordon H.
    Oxman, Andrew D.
    Kunz, Regina
    Woodcock, James
    Brozek, Jan
    Helfand, Mark
    Alonso-Coello, Pablo
    Falck-Ytter, Yngve
    Jaeschke, Roman
    Vist, Gunn
    Akl, Elie A.
    Post, Piet N.
    Norris, Susan
    Meerpohl, Joerg
    Shukla, Vijay K.
    Nasser, Mona
    Schuenemann, Holger J.
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2011, 64 (12) : 1303 - 1310
  • [29] Novel tools and methods for designing and wrangling multifunctional, machine-readable evidence synthesis databases
    Haddaway, Neal R.
    Gray, Charles T.
    Grainger, Matthew
    [J]. ENVIRONMENTAL EVIDENCE, 2021, 10 (01)
  • [30] Features and functioning of Data Abstraction Assistant, a software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews
    Jap, Jens
    Saldanha, Ian J.
    Smith, Bryant T.
    Lau, Joseph
    Schmid, Christopher H.
    Li, Tianjing
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2019, 10 (01) : 2 - 14