ArticleContemporary clinical trials communications2023
Data extraction error in pharmaceutical versus non-pharmaceutical interventions for evidence synthesis: Study protocol for a crossover trial.
Article in Contemporary clinical trials communications, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 2 papers.
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.
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.
Who cites it
2 citing papers in PubMed.
- Assessing data extraction in randomized clinical trials with large language models.BMC medical research methodology · 2026Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
8 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background: Data extraction is the foundation for research synthesis evidence, while data extraction errors frequently occur in the literature. An interesting phenomenon was observed that data extraction error tend to be more common in trials of pharmaceutical interventions compared to non-pharmaceutical ones. The elucidation of which would have implications for guidelines, practice, and policy. Methods and analyses: We propose a crossover, multicenter, investigator-blinded trial to elucidate the potential variants on the data extraction error rates. Eligible 90 participants would be 2nd year or above post-graduate students (e.g., masters, doctoral program). Participants will be randomized to one of the two groups to complete pre-defined data extraction tasks: 1) group A will contain 10 randomized controlled trials (RCTs) of pharmaceutical interventions; 2) group B will contain 10 RCTs of non-pharmaceutical interventions. Participants who finish the data extraction would then be assigned to the alternative group for another round of data extraction after a 30 min washout period. Finally, those participants assigned to A or B group will be further 1:1 randomly matched based on a random-sequenced number for the double-checking process on the extracted data. The primary outcome will be the data extract error rates of the pharmaceutical intervention group and non-pharmaceutical group, Discussion: This trial will provide useful evidence for further systematic review of data extraction practices, improved data extraction strategies, and better guidelines. Trial registration: Chinese Clinical Trial Register Center (Identifier: ChiCTR2200062206).
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.