Cargando…

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

BACKGROUND: Data 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...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Afifi, Mohamed, Stryhn, Henrik, Sanchez, Javier
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2023
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38041161
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02322-1
_version_ 1785152662237347840
author Afifi, Mohamed
Stryhn, Henrik
Sanchez, Javier
author_facet Afifi, Mohamed
Stryhn, Henrik
Sanchez, Javier
author_sort Afifi, Mohamed
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Data 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: We 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02322-1.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-10691069
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2023
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-106910692023-12-02 Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software Afifi, Mohamed Stryhn, Henrik Sanchez, Javier Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Data 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. METHODS: We 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. RESULTS: The 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. CONCLUSIONS: We 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. SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s13643-023-02322-1. BioMed Central 2023-12-01 /pmc/articles/PMC10691069/ /pubmed/38041161 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02322-1 Text en © The Author(s) 2023 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data.
spellingShingle Research
Afifi, Mohamed
Stryhn, Henrik
Sanchez, Javier
Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software
title Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software
title_full Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software
title_fullStr Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software
title_full_unstemmed Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software
title_short Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software
title_sort data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC10691069/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/38041161
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02322-1
work_keys_str_mv AT afifimohamed dataextractionandcomparisonforcomplexsystematicreviewsastepbystepguidelineandanimplementationexampleusingopensourcesoftware
AT stryhnhenrik dataextractionandcomparisonforcomplexsystematicreviewsastepbystepguidelineandanimplementationexampleusingopensourcesoftware
AT sanchezjavier dataextractionandcomparisonforcomplexsystematicreviewsastepbystepguidelineandanimplementationexampleusingopensourcesoftware