Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29179685›Full record

SynthesisBMC medical research methodology2017

Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review.

Tim Mathes, Pauline Klaßen, Dawid Pieper

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 88 papers, 19 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
88citing papers in PubMed, 19 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

88 citing papers in PubMed, 19 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. The diagnostic value of physical examination tests in adhesive capsulitis: a systematic review.European journal of physical and rehabilitation medicine · 2023
    Pooled it
  13. Guideline
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Article

28 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

3 authors.

Tim MathesInstitute for Research in Operative Medicinem, Chair of Surgical Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. Tim.Mathes@uni-wh.de.
Pauline KlaßenInstitute for Research in Operative Medicinem, Chair of Surgical Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.
Dawid PieperInstitute for Research in Operative Medicinem, Chair of Surgical Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOur objective was to assess the frequency of data extraction errors and its potential impact on results in systematic reviews. Furthermore, we evaluated the effect of different extraction methods, reviewer characteristics and reviewer training on error rates and results.

methodsWe performed a systematic review of methodological literature in PubMed, Cochrane methodological registry, and by manual searches (12/2016). Studies were selected by two reviewers independently. Data were extracted in standardized tables by one reviewer and verified by a second.

resultsThe analysis included six studies; four studies on extraction error frequency, one study comparing different reviewer extraction methods and two studies comparing different reviewer characteristics. We did not find a study on reviewer training. There was a high rate of extraction errors (up to 50%). Errors often had an influence on effect estimates. Different data extraction methods and reviewer characteristics had moderate effect on extraction error rates and effect estimates.

conclusionThe evidence base for established standards of data extraction seems weak despite the high prevalence of extraction errors. More comparative studies are needed to get deeper insights into the influence of different extraction methods.

Indexed as

Data AccuracyHumansResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicAccuracyData extractionErrorsReviewersSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID29179685
PMCPMC5704562

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.