Evidence map›Paper›PMID 29368631›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2018

Response to 'Increasing value and reducing waste in data extraction for systematic reviews: tracking data in data extraction forms'.

Jens Jap, Ian J Saldanha, Bryant T Smith, Joseph Lau, Tianjing Li

Abstract readLetterComment
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

5 authors.

Jens JapCenter of Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, USA. jens_jap@brown.edu.ORCID 0000-0003-4625-683X
Ian J SaldanhaDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.
Bryant T SmithCenter of Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, USA.
Joseph LauCenter of Evidence Synthesis in Health, Brown University School of Public Health, Providence, USA.
Tianjing LiDepartment of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, USA.

Funding

Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute (US) ME-1310-07009
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

ᅟ: This is a response to a Letter. Data abstraction is a time-consuming and error-prone systematic review task. Shokraneh and Adams categorize available techniques for tracking data during data abstraction into three methods: simple annotation, descriptive addressing, and Cartesian coordinate system. While we agree with the categorization of the techniques, we disagree with the authors' statement that descriptive addressing is a PDF-independent method, i.e., any sort of descriptive addressing must reference a specific version of PDF file and not just any PDF of said report. Different versions of PDFs of the same report might place text and tables on different locations of the same page and/or on different pages. Consequently, it is our opinion that any kind of source location information should be accompanied by the source or linked by an intermediary service such as the Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA).

Indexed as

Antiviral AgentsHepatitis C, ChronicHumansAntiviral Agents

Identifiers

PMID29368631
PMCPMC5784663

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.