|
R Option1 #685214
| Tags: R software, packages, apps, applications |
+CitavimÄ
(1) - CitavimÄ
PridÄti citatÄ
List by: CiterankMapLink[1] Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software
Cituoja: Mohamed Afifi, Henrik Stryhn, Javier Sanchez Publication date: 1 December 2023 Publication info: Systematic Reviews, Volume 12, Article number: 226 (2023) Cituojamas: David Price 7:55 PM 12 December 2023 GMT Citerank: (2) 679809Javier SanchezProfessor of Epidemiology at University of Prince Edward Island.10019D3ABAB, 701020CANMOD â PublicationsPublications by CANMOD Members144B5ACA0 URL: DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-023-02322-1
| IĆĄtrauka - [Systematic Reviews, 1 December 2023]
Background: Data extraction (DE) is a challenging step in systematic reviews (SRs). Complex SRs can involve multiple interventions and/or outcomes and encompass multiple research questions. Attempts have been made to clarify DE aspects focusing on the subsequent meta-analysis; there are, however, no guidelines for DE in complex SRs. Comparing datasets extracted independently by pairs of reviewers to detect discrepancies is also cumbersome, especially when the number of extracted variables and/or studies is colossal. This work aims to provide a set of practical steps to help SR teams design and build DE tools and compare extracted data for complex SRs.
Methods: We provided a 10-step guideline, from determining data items and structure to data comparison, to help identify discrepancies and solve data disagreements between reviewers. The steps were organised into three phases: planning and building the database and data manipulation. Each step was described and illustrated with examples, and relevant references were provided for further guidance. A demonstration example was presented to illustrate the application of Epi Info and R in the database building and data manipulation phases. The proposed guideline was also summarised and compared with previous DE guidelines.
Results: The steps of this guideline are described generally without focusing on a particular software application or meta-analysis technique. We emphasised determining the organisational data structure and highlighted its role in the subsequent steps of database building. In addition to the minimal programming skills needed, creating relational databases and data validation features of Epi info can be utilised to build DE tools for complex SRs. However, two R libraries are needed to facilitate data comparison and solve discrepancies.
Conclusions: We hope adopting this guideline can help review teams construct DE tools that suit their complex review projects. Although Epi Info depends on proprietary software for data storage, it can still be a potential alternative to other commercial DE software for completing complex reviews. |
|
|