Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity

Mohamed B. Elamin, David N. Flynn, Dirk Bassler, Matthias Briel, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Paul Jack Karanicolas, Gordon H. Guyatt, German Malaga, Toshiaki A. Furukawa, Regina Kunz, Holger Schünemann, Mohammad H Murad, Corrado Barbui, Andrea Cipriani, Victor Manuel Montori

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

24 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)506-510
Number of pages5
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume62
Issue number5
DOIs
StatePublished - May 2009

Fingerprint

Software
Costs and Cost Analysis
Research Personnel
Databases
Surveys and Questionnaires

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. / Elamin, Mohamed B.; Flynn, David N.; Bassler, Dirk; Briel, Matthias; Alonso-Coello, Pablo; Karanicolas, Paul Jack; Guyatt, Gordon H.; Malaga, German; Furukawa, Toshiaki A.; Kunz, Regina; Schünemann, Holger; Murad, Mohammad H; Barbui, Corrado; Cipriani, Andrea; Montori, Victor Manuel.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 62, No. 5, 05.2009, p. 506-510.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Elamin, MB, Flynn, DN, Bassler, D, Briel, M, Alonso-Coello, P, Karanicolas, PJ, Guyatt, GH, Malaga, G, Furukawa, TA, Kunz, R, Schünemann, H, Murad, MH, Barbui, C, Cipriani, A & Montori, VM 2009, 'Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 62, no. 5, pp. 506-510. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016
Elamin, Mohamed B. ; Flynn, David N. ; Bassler, Dirk ; Briel, Matthias ; Alonso-Coello, Pablo ; Karanicolas, Paul Jack ; Guyatt, Gordon H. ; Malaga, German ; Furukawa, Toshiaki A. ; Kunz, Regina ; Schünemann, Holger ; Murad, Mohammad H ; Barbui, Corrado ; Cipriani, Andrea ; Montori, Victor Manuel. / Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2009 ; Vol. 62, No. 5. pp. 506-510.
@article{1da855f2899d492fa8e8469764e8cf05,
title = "Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity",
abstract = "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.",
author = "Elamin, {Mohamed B.} and Flynn, {David N.} and Dirk Bassler and Matthias Briel and Pablo Alonso-Coello and Karanicolas, {Paul Jack} and Guyatt, {Gordon H.} and German Malaga and Furukawa, {Toshiaki A.} and Regina Kunz and Holger Sch{\"u}nemann and Murad, {Mohammad H} and Corrado Barbui and Andrea Cipriani and Montori, {Victor Manuel}",
year = "2009",
month = "5",
doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.016",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "62",
pages = "506--510",
journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",
issn = "0895-4356",
publisher = "Elsevier USA",
number = "5",

}

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 H

AU - Barbui, Corrado

AU - Cipriani, Andrea

AU - Montori, Victor Manuel

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 - Article

VL - 62

SP - 506

EP - 510

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 5

ER -