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
  • [51] RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
    Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
    Savovic, Jelena
    Page, Matthew J.
    Elbers, Roy G.
    Blencowe, Natalie S.
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Cates, Christopher J.
    Cheng, Hung-Yuan
    Corbett, Mark S.
    Eldridge, Sandra M.
    Emberson, Jonathan R.
    Hernan, Miguel A.
    Hopewell, Sally
    Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn
    Junqueira, Daniela R.
    Juni, Peter
    Kirkham, Jamie J.
    Lasserson, Toby
    Li, Tianjing
    McAleenan, Alexandra
    Reeves, Barnaby C.
    Shepperd, Sasha
    Shrier, Ian
    Stewart, Lesley A.
    Tilling, Kate
    White, Ian R.
    Whiting, Penny F.
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2019, 366
  • [52] ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
    Sterne, Jonathan A. C.
    Hernan, Miguel A.
    Reeves, Barnaby C.
    Savovic, Jelena
    Berkman, Nancy D.
    Viswanathan, Meera
    Henry, David
    Altman, Douglas G.
    Ansari, Mohammed T.
    Boutron, Isabelle
    Carpenter, James R.
    Chan, An-Wen
    Churchill, Rachel
    Deeks, Jonathan J.
    Hrobjartsson, Asbjorn
    Kirkham, Jamie
    Juni, Peter
    Loke, Yoon K.
    Pigott, Theresa D.
    Ramsay, Craig R.
    Regidor, Deborah
    Rothstein, Hannah R.
    Sandhu, Lakhbir
    Santaguida, Pasqualina L.
    Schunemann, Holger J.
    Shea, Beverly
    Shrier, Ian
    Tugwell, Peter
    Turner, Lucy
    Valentine, Jeffrey C.
    Waddington, Hugh
    Waters, Elizabeth
    Wells, George A.
    Whiting, Penny F.
    Higgins, Julian P. T.
    [J]. BMJ-BRITISH MEDICAL JOURNAL, 2016, 355
  • [53] Research synthesis - Coding and conjectures
    Stock, WA
    Benito, JG
    Lasa, NB
    [J]. EVALUATION & THE HEALTH PROFESSIONS, 1996, 19 (01) : 104 - 117
  • [54] Su Y, 2003, AMIA Annu Symp Proc, P1023
  • [55] Taylor K, Data extraction tips for meta-analysis
  • [56] Summarising good practice guidelines for data extraction for systematic reviews and meta-analysis
    Taylor, Kathryn S.
    Mahtani, Kamal R.
    Aronson, Jeffrey K.
    [J]. BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE, 2021, 26 (03) : 88 - 90
  • [57] Teorey T, 2011, MOR KAUF D, P13
  • [58] Thomas J., 2022, EPPI-Reviewer: Advanced software for systematic reviews, maps and evidence synthesis
  • [59] Modeling and teaching techniques for conceptual and logical relational database design
    Thompson C.B.
    Sward K.
    [J]. Journal of Medical Systems, 2005, 29 (5) : 513 - 525
  • [60] Thrusfield M., 2018, Veterinary epidemiology, V4th, P219