Evidence map›Paper›PMID 37051451›Full record

ArticleCampbell systematic reviews2021

Using big data for evaluating development outcomes: A systematic map.

Francis Rathinam, Sayak Khatua, Zeba Siddiqui, Manya Malik, Pallavi Duggal, Samantha Watson, Xavier Vollenweider

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Campbell systematic reviews, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 4 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
4citing 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

4 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Article
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

7 authors.

Francis RathinamAthena Infonomics Chennai India.
Sayak Khatua3ie New Delhi India.
Zeba Siddiqui3ie New Delhi India.
Manya Malik3ie New Delhi India.
Pallavi Duggal3ie New Delhi India.
Samantha WatsonFlowminder Stockholm Sweden.
Xavier VollenweiderFlowminder Stockholm Sweden.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Background: Policy makers need access to reliable data to monitor and evaluate the progress of development outcomes and targets such as sustainable development outcomes (SDGs). However, significant data and evidence gaps remain. Lack of resources, limited capacity within governments and logistical difficulties in collecting data are some of the reasons for the data gaps. Big data-that is digitally generated, passively produced and automatically collected-offers a great potential for answering some of the data needs. Satellite and sensors, mobile phone call detail records, online transactions and search data, and social media are some of the examples of big data. Integrating big data with the traditional household surveys and administrative data can complement data availability, quality, granularity, accuracy and frequency, and help measure development outcomes temporally and spatially in a number of new ways.The study maps different sources of big data onto development outcomes (based on SDGs) to identify current evidence base, use and the gaps. The map provides a visual overview of existing and ongoing studies. This study also discusses the risks, biases and ethical challenges in using big data for measuring and evaluating development outcomes. The study is a valuable resource for evaluators, researchers, funders, policymakers and practitioners in their effort to contributing to evidence informed policy making and in achieving the SDGs. Objectives: Identify and appraise rigorous impact evaluations (IEs), systematic reviews and the studies that have innovatively used big data to measure any development outcomes with special reference to difficult contexts. Search Methods: A number of general and specialised data bases and reporsitories of organisations were searched using keywords related to big data by an information specialist. Selection Criteria: The studies were selected on basis of whether they used big data sources to measure or evaluate development outcomes. Data Collection and Analysis: Data collection was conducted using a data extraction tool and all extracted data was entered into excel and then analysed using Stata. The data analysis involved looking at trends and descriptive statistics only. Main Results: The search yielded over 17,000 records, which we then screened down to 437 studies which became the foundation of our systematic map. We found that overall, there is a sizable and rapidly growing number of measurement studies using big data but a much smaller number of IEs. We also see that the bulk of the big data sources are machine-generated (mostly satellites) represented in the light blue. We find that satellite data was used in over 70% of the measurement studies and in over 80% of the IEs. Authors' Conclusions: This map gives us a sense that there is a lot of work being done to develop appropriate measures using big data which could subsequently be used in IEs. Information on costs, ethics, transparency is lacking in the studies and more work is needed in this area to understand the efficacies related to the use of big data. There are a number of outcomes which are not being studied using big data, either due to the lack to applicability such as education or due to lack of awareness about the new methods and data sources. The map points to a number of gaps as well as opportunities where future researchers can conduct research.

Identifiers

PMID37051451
PMCPMC8354555

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.