ArticleBMJ open2024
Validity of data extraction in acupuncture meta-analysis: a reproducibility study protocol.
Article in BMJ open, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
introductionSystematic review and meta-analysis occupy the apex of the evidence pyramid, serving as the most comprehensive and reliable form of evidence-based assessment. Data extraction is a crucial juncture in meta-analysis, establishing the underpinnings for the outcomes and deductions drawn from systematic reviews (SRs). However, the frequency of data extraction errors in meta-analysis is quite significant. Data extraction errors can lead to biased study results, affect the credibility of study results and even mislead clinical practice. The quantity of acupuncture randomised controlled trials and SRs has expanded rapidly recently, yet the validity of data extraction remains unexplored. Hence, our study aims to investigate the validity of data extraction errors in acupuncture SRs, the effect of data extraction errors on results and the relevant guidelines used erroneous results. METHODS AND ANALYSIS: Four databases including MEDLINE, Web of Science, Cochrane linbrary and EMBASE will be searched from 1 January 2019 to 31 December 2023 for acupuncture SRs. Two researchers will independently extract data from the meta-analysis and the original study into a standardised data extraction table. A senior investigator, who did not participate in the data extraction process, will verify the results. In cases of discrepancies, the senior researcher will conduct further extraction and consult with another senior researcher to determine the final results. We will analyse the frequency and type of data extraction errors and data estimation errors and evaluate the effect of data extraction errors on results. Quantile regression will be used to explore the factors influencing data extraction error frequency at 25th, 50th and 75th percentiles. Finally, we will further search for guidelines used erroneous results. ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION: Ethical approval is not necessary for this study. This protocol has been registered in Open Science Framework Registries. REGISTRATION DOI: https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/CHMPA.
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.