Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: a review of methodological guidance
- PDF / 650,733 Bytes
- 14 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 88 Downloads / 192 Views
(2020) 20:259
RESEARCH ARTICLE
Open Access
Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: a review of methodological guidance Roland Brian Büchter* , Alina Weise and Dawid Pieper
Abstract Background: Data extraction forms link systematic reviews with primary research and provide the foundation for appraising, analysing, summarising and interpreting a body of evidence. This makes their development, pilot testing and use a crucial part of the systematic reviews process. Several studies have shown that data extraction errors are frequent in systematic reviews, especially regarding outcome data. Methods: We reviewed guidance on the development and pilot testing of data extraction forms and the data extraction process. We reviewed four types of sources: 1) methodological handbooks of systematic review organisations (SRO); 2) textbooks on conducting systematic reviews; 3) method documents from health technology assessment (HTA) agencies and 4) journal articles. HTA documents were retrieved in February 2019 and database searches conducted in December 2019. One author extracted the recommendations and a second author checked them for accuracy. Results are presented descriptively. Results: Our analysis includes recommendations from 25 documents: 4 SRO handbooks, 11 textbooks, 5 HTA method documents and 5 journal articles. Across these sources the most common recommendations on form development are to use customized or adapted standardised extraction forms (14/25); provide detailed instructions on their use (10/25); ensure clear and consistent coding and response options (9/25); plan in advance which data are needed (9/25); obtain additional data if required (8/25); and link multiple reports of the same study (8/25). The most frequent recommendations on piloting extractions forms are that forms should be piloted on a sample of studies (18/25); and that data extractors should be trained in the use of the forms (7/25). The most frequent recommendations on data extraction are that extraction should be conducted by at least two people (17/25); that independent parallel extraction should be used (11/25); and that procedures to resolve disagreements between data extractors should be in place (14/25). Conclusions: Overall, our results suggest a lack of comprehensiveness of recommendations. This may be particularly problematic for less experienced reviewers. Limitations of our method are the scoping nature of the review and that we did not analyse internal documents of health technology agencies. Keywords: Systematic review methods, Evidence synthesis, Data extraction
* Correspondence: [email protected] Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109 Cologne, Germany © The Author(s). 2020 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 y
Data Loading...
