Features and functioning of Data Abstraction Assistant, a software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews

Research Synthesis Methods

Volumn 10, Issue 1, 2019, Pages 2-14

  Jap, Jens ^a   Saldanha, Ian J ^a   Smith, Bryant T ^a   Lau, Joseph ^a   Schmid, Christopher H ^a   Li, Tianjing ^b  

^a BROWN UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b JOHNS HOPKINS BLOOMBERG SCHOOL OF PUBLIC HEALTH   (United States)

Author keywords

data abstraction; data exchange; data tracking; software; systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

AUTOMATED PATTERN RECOGNITION; COMPUTER INTERFACE; COMPUTER LANGUAGE; DOCUMENTATION; HUMAN; INTERNET; PROCEDURES; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; SOFTWARE;

ABSTRACTING AND INDEXING AS TOPIC; HUMANS; INTERNET; PATTERN RECOGNITION, AUTOMATED; PROGRAMMING LANGUAGES; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; SOFTWARE; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC; USER-COMPUTER INTERFACE;

EID: 85063098077     PISSN: None     EISSN: 17592887     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1326     Document Type: Review

References (18)

1. Mathes T, Klaßen P, Pieper D. Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017;17(1):152.
2. Saldanha IJ, Schmid CH, Lau J, et al. Evaluating Data Abstraction Assistant, a novel software application for data abstraction during systematic reviews: protocol for a randomized controlled trial. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):196.
3. Carroll C, Scope A, Kaltenthaler E. A case study of binary outcome data extraction across three systematic reviews of hip arthroplasty: errors and differences of selection. BMC Res Notes. 2013;6(1):539.
4. Horton J, Vandermeer B, Hartling L, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP, Buscemi N. Systematic review data extraction: cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2010;63(3):289-298.
5. Gøtzsche PC, Hróbjartsson A, Maric K, Tendal B. Data extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. JAMA. 2007;298(4):430-437.
6. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697-703.
7. Jones AP, Remmington T, Williamson PR, Ashby D, Smyth RL. High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(7):741-742.
8. Li T, Vedula SS, Hadar N, Parkin C, Lau J, Dickersin K. Innovations in data collection, management, and archiving for systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2015;162(4):287-294.
9. Ip S, Hadar N, Keefe S, et al. A web-based archive of systematic review data. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):15. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-15
10. Covidence systematic review software, Veritas Health Innovation, Melbourne, Australia. Available at www.covidence.org. Last accessed June 18, 2018.
11. Thomas J, Brunton J, Graziosi S (2010) EPPI-Reviewer 4.0: software for research synthesis. EPPI-Centre Software. London: Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education, University of London. Available at https://eppi.ioe.ac.uk/cms/Default.aspx?tabid=2967. Last accessed June 18, 2018.
12. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545
13. Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):78.
14. Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC. RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2016;23(1):193-201.
15. Millard LAC, Flach PA, Higgins JPT. Machine learning to assist risk-of-bias assessments in systematic reviews. Int J Epidemiol. 2016;45(1):266-277.
16. International Conference on Harmonisation of Technical Requirements for Registration of Pharmaceuticals for Human Use. ICH Harmonised Tripartite Guideline: Structure and Content of Clinical Study Reports E3. 1995. Available at www.ich.org/fileadmin/Public_Web_Site/ICH_Products/Guidelines/Efficacy/E3/E3_Guideline.pdf. Last accessed June 18, 2018.
17. Mayo-Wilson E, Li T, Fusco N, Dickersin K, MUDS investigators. Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta-analyses (with examples from the MUDS study). Res Syn Meth. 2018;9(1):2-12.
18. Doshi P, Jefferson T. Clinical study reports of randomised controlled trials: an exploratory review of previously confidential industry reports. BMJ Open. 2013;3(2). pii: e002496. doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2012-002496