• 文献检索
  • 文档翻译
  • 深度研究
  • 学术资讯
  • Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件
  • 邀请有礼
  • 套餐&价格
  • 历史记录
应用&插件
Suppr Zotero 插件Zotero 插件浏览器插件Mac 客户端Windows 客户端微信小程序
定价
高级版会员购买积分包购买API积分包
服务
文献检索文档翻译深度研究API 文档MCP 服务
关于我们
关于 Suppr公司介绍联系我们用户协议隐私条款
关注我们

Suppr 超能文献

核心技术专利:CN118964589B侵权必究
粤ICP备2023148730 号-1Suppr @ 2026

文献检索

告别复杂PubMed语法,用中文像聊天一样搜索,搜遍4000万医学文献。AI智能推荐,让科研检索更轻松。

立即免费搜索

文件翻译

保留排版,准确专业,支持PDF/Word/PPT等文件格式,支持 12+语言互译。

免费翻译文档

深度研究

AI帮你快速写综述,25分钟生成高质量综述,智能提取关键信息,辅助科研写作。

立即免费体验

系统评论员使用了各种方法来提取数据,并表达了一些研究需求:调查。

Systematic reviewers used various approaches to data extraction and expressed several research needs: a survey.

机构信息

Institute for Research in Operative Medicine (IFOM), Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Cologne, Germany.

Department of Health Care Management, Technische Universität Berlin, Berlin, Germany.

出版信息

J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Jul;159:214-224. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.027. Epub 2023 Jun 5.

DOI:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.027
PMID:37286149
Abstract

OBJECTIVE

Data extraction is a prerequisite for analyzing, summarizing, and interpreting evidence in systematic reviews. Yet guidance is limited, and little is known about current approaches. We surveyed systematic reviewers on their current approaches to data extraction, opinions on methods, and research needs.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We developed a 29-question online survey and distributed it through relevant organizations, social media, and personal networks in 2022. Closed questions were evaluated using descriptive statistics, and open questions were analyzed using content analysis.

RESULTS

162 reviewers participated. Use of adapted (65%) or newly developed extraction forms (62%) was common. Generic forms were rarely used (14%). Spreadsheet software was the most popular extraction tool (83%). Piloting was reported by 74% of respondents and included a variety of approaches. Independent and duplicate extraction was considered the most appropriate approach to data collection (64%). About half of respondents agreed that blank forms and/or raw data should be published. Suggested research gaps were the effects of different methods on error rates (60%) and the use of data extraction support tools (46%).

CONCLUSION

Systematic reviewers used varying approaches to pilot data extraction. Methods to reduce errors and use of support tools such as (semi-)automation tools are top research gaps.

摘要

目的

数据提取是系统评价中分析、总结和解释证据的前提。然而,相关指导有限,目前的方法也知之甚少。我们调查了系统评价者在数据提取方面的当前方法、对方法的看法以及研究需求。

研究设计与设置

我们开发了一个 29 个问题的在线调查,并于 2022 年通过相关组织、社交媒体和个人网络进行了分发。使用描述性统计对封闭问题进行评估,对开放问题进行内容分析。

结果

共有 162 名评论者参与。使用改编(65%)或新开发的提取表格(62%)很常见。很少使用通用表格(14%)。电子表格软件是最受欢迎的数据提取工具(83%)。74%的受访者报告了预试验,且采用了各种方法。独立和重复提取被认为是最适合数据收集的方法(64%)。约一半的受访者同意应公布空白表格和/或原始数据。建议的研究空白包括不同方法对错误率的影响(60%)以及数据提取支持工具的使用(46%)。

结论

系统评价者使用了不同的方法来预试验数据提取。减少错误的方法和使用数据提取支持工具(如半自动工具)是研究的最大空白。

相似文献

1
Systematic reviewers used various approaches to data extraction and expressed several research needs: a survey.系统评论员使用了各种方法来提取数据,并表达了一些研究需求:调查。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2023 Jul;159:214-224. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2023.05.027. Epub 2023 Jun 5.
2
Systematic review automation tools improve efficiency but lack of knowledge impedes their adoption: a survey.系统评价自动化工具可提高效率,但知识的匮乏阻碍了其应用:一项调查。
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Oct;138:80-94. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.06.030. Epub 2021 Jul 7.
3
Folic acid supplementation and malaria susceptibility and severity among people taking antifolate antimalarial drugs in endemic areas.在流行地区,服用抗叶酸抗疟药物的人群中,叶酸补充剂与疟疾易感性和严重程度的关系。
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2022 Feb 1;2(2022):CD014217. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD014217.
4
Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: A living review protocol.系统评价数据提取方法(半自动):一项实时综述方案。
F1000Res. 2020 Mar 25;9:210. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.22781.2. eCollection 2020.
5
Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.系统评价中数据提取的准备、预试验及实施方法的报告:对152篇Cochrane及非Cochrane综述样本的分析
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021 Nov 6;21(1):240. doi: 10.1186/s12874-021-01438-z.
6
(Semi)automated approaches to data extraction for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in social sciences: A living review.(半)自动化方法在社会科学系统评价和荟萃分析中的数据提取:一项正在进行的综述。
F1000Res. 2024 Sep 26;13:664. doi: 10.12688/f1000research.151493.1. eCollection 2024.
7
A question of trust: can we build an evidence base to gain trust in systematic review automation technologies?信任的问题:我们能否建立一个证据基础,以获得对系统评价自动化技术的信任?
Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 18;8(1):143. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1062-0.
8
Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation.支持医疗保健系统评价标题和摘要筛选的软件工具:评价。
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020 Jan 13;20(1):7. doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-0897-3.
9
Usage of automation tools in systematic reviews.自动化工具在系统评价中的使用。
Res Synth Methods. 2019 Mar;10(1):72-82. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1335. Epub 2019 Jan 22.
10
The future of Cochrane Neonatal.考克兰新生儿协作网的未来。
Early Hum Dev. 2020 Nov;150:105191. doi: 10.1016/j.earlhumdev.2020.105191. Epub 2020 Sep 12.

引用本文的文献

1
Advancing genetic services in African healthcare: Challenges, opportunities, and strategic insights from a scoping review.推进非洲医疗保健领域的基因服务:一项范围审查中的挑战、机遇与战略见解
HGG Adv. 2025 Apr 10;6(3):100439. doi: 10.1016/j.xhgg.2025.100439.
2
Oral Antibacterial Drug Prescribing in Primary Care Out-of-Hours Services: A Scoping Review.基层医疗非工作时间服务中的口服抗菌药物处方:一项范围综述
Antibiotics (Basel). 2025 Jan 16;14(1):100. doi: 10.3390/antibiotics14010100.
3
Analysis of co-operative irrigation farming and household food security in Africa: A PRISMA model approach.
非洲合作灌溉农业与家庭粮食安全分析:一种PRISMA模型方法。
Heliyon. 2024 Oct 18;10(20):e39581. doi: 10.1016/j.heliyon.2024.e39581. eCollection 2024 Oct 30.
4
Navigating the Genetic Frontier for the Integration of Genetic Services into African Healthcare Systems: A scoping review.将基因服务整合到非洲医疗保健系统中的基因前沿探索:一项范围综述
Res Sq. 2024 Feb 28:rs.3.rs-3978686. doi: 10.21203/rs.3.rs-3978686/v1.