TY - JOUR
T1 - Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity
AU - Elamin, Mohamed B.
AU - Flynn, David N.
AU - Bassler, Dirk
AU - Briel, Matthias
AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo
AU - Karanicolas, Paul Jack
AU - Guyatt, Gordon H.
AU - Malaga, German
AU - Furukawa, Toshiaki A.
AU - Kunz, Regina
AU - Schünemann, Holger
AU - Murad, Mohammad Hassan
AU - Barbui, Corrado
AU - Cipriani, Andrea
AU - Montori, Victor M.
N1 - Funding Information:
Matthias Briel is supported by the Swiss National Foundation (PASMA-112951/1). Holger Schünemann is supported by a “The human factor, mobility and Marie Curie Actions Scientist Reintegration” European Commission Grant: IGR 42192. Regina Kunz is supported by santesuisse and the Bangerter-Rhyner-Foundation.
PY - 2009/5
Y1 - 2009/5
N2 - Objective: To assist investigators planning, coordinating, and conducting systematic reviews in the selection of data-extraction tools for conducting systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting: We constructed an initial table listing available data-collection tools and reflecting our experience with these tools and their performance. An international group of experts iteratively reviewed the table and reflected on the performance of the tools until no new insights and consensus resulted. Results: Several tools are available to manage data in systematic reviews, including paper and pencil, spreadsheets, web-based surveys, electronic databases, and web-based specialized software. Each tool offers benefits and drawbacks: specialized web-based software is well suited in most ways, but is associated with higher setup costs. Other approaches vary in their setup costs and difficulty, training requirements, portability and accessibility, versatility, progress tracking, and the ability to manage, present, store, and retrieve data. Conclusion: Available funding, number and location of reviewers, data needs, and the complexity of the project should govern the selection of a data-extraction tool when conducting systematic reviews.
AB - Objective: To assist investigators planning, coordinating, and conducting systematic reviews in the selection of data-extraction tools for conducting systematic reviews. Study Design and Setting: We constructed an initial table listing available data-collection tools and reflecting our experience with these tools and their performance. An international group of experts iteratively reviewed the table and reflected on the performance of the tools until no new insights and consensus resulted. Results: Several tools are available to manage data in systematic reviews, including paper and pencil, spreadsheets, web-based surveys, electronic databases, and web-based specialized software. Each tool offers benefits and drawbacks: specialized web-based software is well suited in most ways, but is associated with higher setup costs. Other approaches vary in their setup costs and difficulty, training requirements, portability and accessibility, versatility, progress tracking, and the ability to manage, present, store, and retrieve data. Conclusion: Available funding, number and location of reviewers, data needs, and the complexity of the project should govern the selection of a data-extraction tool when conducting systematic reviews.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=63449106724&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=63449106724&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016
M3 - Review article
C2 - 19348977
AN - SCOPUS:63449106724
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 62
SP - 506
EP - 510
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
IS - 5
ER -