Review Article
Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016Get rights and content

Abstract

Objective

To assist investigators planning, coordinating, and conducting systematic reviews in the selection of data-extraction tools for conducting systematic reviews.

Study Design and Setting

We constructed an initial table listing available data-collection tools and reflecting our experience with these tools and their performance. An international group of experts iteratively reviewed the table and reflected on the performance of the tools until no new insights and consensus resulted.

Results

Several tools are available to manage data in systematic reviews, including paper and pencil, spreadsheets, web-based surveys, electronic databases, and web-based specialized software. Each tool offers benefits and drawbacks: specialized web-based software is well suited in most ways, but is associated with higher setup costs. Other approaches vary in their setup costs and difficulty, training requirements, portability and accessibility, versatility, progress tracking, and the ability to manage, present, store, and retrieve data.

Conclusion

Available funding, number and location of reviewers, data needs, and the complexity of the project should govern the selection of a data-extraction tool when conducting systematic reviews.

Introduction

Systematic reviews allow for the rigorous identification, selection, and summary of research evidence to answer a focused question [1], [2]. Increasingly, clinicians, patients, researchers, and policy makers rely on high-quality systematic reviews for decision making. A key step in the review process is the structured extraction of data from eligible primary studies, a procedure that, typically, pairs of reviewers conduct in duplicate and independently. In any systematic review, a crucial task for the project's leader, or in a better-funded situation, a dedicated systematic review coordinator, is managing the data. Several data-extraction tools may assist reviewers in conducting systematic reviews. Selecting the optimal tool requires balancing the upstart and maintenance effort and costs to obtain the necessary functionality for often complex projects.

In this report, we collate the collective experience of several systematic reviewers, from different countries, to offer a reference guide for investigators planning, coordinating, and conducting systematic reviews, henceforth referred to as systematic reviewers, choosing and designing data-extraction procedures for systematic reviews. To our knowledge, this is the first assessment of data-extraction tools for conducting systematic reviews.

Section snippets

Methods

We drafted a preliminary table capturing the experience of two systematic review coordinators (M.B.E. and D.N.F.) that outlined the most common data-extraction tools used in our systematic review group, the Knowledge and Encounter Research (KER) Unit at Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota [3]. The tools used for data extraction were paper and pencil and their equivalent electronic word processing software, spreadsheets, local relational databases, web-based forms, and electronic web-based

Results

Table 1 describes the collected tools and characteristics that resulted from our exploration. Additionally, Table 2 describes the different ways to distribute the selected tool to reviewers, a key consideration in selecting extraction tools.

Discussion

The data-extraction step in a systematic review requires extensive planning and piloting. This planning includes not only the design of the data-extraction procedures, but also the selection of the optimal tool and piloting its performance in conducting the specific review. Volume, nature, and complexity of the data, the number, location, and computer literacy and access (both to a computer and to the Internet) of the reviewers, and the available funding for the project play a major role in the

Conclusion

No single data-extraction method is best for all systematic reviews in all circumstances. Before selecting a tool, reviewers must bear in mind the volume, nature and complexity of the data, the number, location, and computer literacy and access (both to a computer and to the internet) of the reviewers, and the available funding for the project. Planning and careful selection and piloting of the appropriate data-extraction tools are paramount in efficiently yielding data for a high-quality

Acknowledgment/funding

Matthias Briel is supported by the Swiss National Foundation (PASMA-112951/1). Holger Schünemann is supported by a “The human factor, mobility and Marie Curie Actions Scientist Reintegration” European Commission Grant: IGR 42192. Regina Kunz is supported by santesuisse and the Bangerter-Rhyner-Foundation.

References (8)

  • E.M. Antman et al.

    A comparison of results of meta-analyses of randomized control trials and recommendations of clinical experts. Treatments for myocardial infarction

    JAMA

    (1992)
  • A.D. Oxman et al.

    The science of reviewing research

    Ann N Y Acad Sci

    (1993)
  • Knowledge & Encounter Research Unit http://mayoresearch.mayo.edu/mayo/research/ker_unit/index.cfm) (Accessed August 1,...
  • L.A. Goodman

    Snowball sampling

    Ann Math Statist

    (1961)
There are more references available in the full text version of this article.

Cited by (49)

  • The Effectiveness and Safety of Manual Therapy on Pain and Disability in Older Persons With Chronic Low Back Pain: A Systematic Review

    2017, Journal of Manipulative and Physiological Therapeutics
    Citation Excerpt :

    The effectiveness of manual therapy was determined through self-reported outcomes for pain and disability. A data extraction tool was developed by 1 reviewer (K.D.) based on the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions15 and peer-reviewed articles.16,17 Data extracted from the studies included authors’ names and affiliations, study year, study design, setting, sample size, randomization, participant characteristics, diagnosis and duration of LBP, type and timing of interventions, primary outcomes, treatment effects, and key findings of the study.

View all citing articles on Scopus
View full text