Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews

  title={Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews},
  author={E Jian-Yu and Ian J. Saldanha and Joseph K. Canner and Christopher H. Schmid and Jimmy T. Le and Tianjing Li},
  journal={Research Synthesis Methods},
  pages={354 - 362}
During systematic reviews, “data abstraction” refers to the process of collecting data from reports of studies. The data abstractors' level of experience may affect the accuracy of data abstracted. Using data from a randomized crossover trial in which different data abstraction approaches were compared, we examined the association between abstractors' level of experience and accuracy of data abstraction. 
Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews
Reporting of data extraction methods in systematic reviews is limited, especially in non-Cochrane reviews, so results can serve as a baseline to assess the uptake of software to assist data extraction and review conduct in future analyses.
PRISMA 2020 explanation and elaboration: updated guidance and exemplars for reporting systematic reviews
This paper presents the explanation and elaboration paper for PRISMA 2020, where it is presented why reporting of each item is recommended, present bullet points that detail the reporting recommendations, and present examples from published reviews.
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews
Prevalence and incidence of dry eye in the USA: a systematic review protocol
A systematic review and meta-analysis of the prevalence and incidence of dry eye in the USA, using published studies from 1 January 2010 to the current date with no language restrictions is proposed.
The effect of including the Nordic Hamstring exercise on sprint and jump performance in athletes: protocol of a systematic review and meta-analyses
This work will answer the question: does including the Nordic Hamstring exercise hamper sprint or jump performance in athletes by performing a systematic review of the literature, critically appraise relevant studies, and grade the evidence across key outcomes.


Evaluating Data Abstraction Assistant, a novel software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews: protocol for a randomized controlled trial
The DAA trial uses a practical design to test a novel software application as a tool to help improve the accuracy and efficiency of the data abstraction process during systematic reviews, providing much-needed evidence to strengthen current recommendations for data abstraction approaches.
Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences.
The high proportion of meta-analyses based on SMDs that show errors indicates that although the statistical process is ostensibly simple, data extraction is particularly liable to errors that can negate or even reverse the findings of the study.
Innovations in Data Collection, Management, and Archiving for Systematic Reviews
A step-by-step tutorial for collecting, managing, and archiving data for systematic reviews and suggest steps for developing rigorous data collection forms in the Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR).
Disagreements in meta-analyses using outcomes measured on continuous or rating scales: observer agreement study
In 14 out of the 100 SMDs calculated at the meta-analysis level, individual observers reached different conclusions than the originally published review, and meta-analyses using SMDs are prone to observer variation and should be interpreted with caution.
Reviewing measures of outcome: reliability of data extraction.
The high level of inter-reviewer agreement supports the use of multiple trained reviewers in data extraction for reviews of measures of outcome using the checklist and Access software described.
Machine learning to assist risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews
This work uses supervised machine learning to train two types of models, for each of the three risk-of-bias properties of sequence generation, allocation concealment and blinding, to identify relevant sentences within the text of included articles, to rank articles by risk of bias and to reduce the number of risk- of-b bias assessments that the reviewers need to perform by hand.