Dataset Information

Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

ABSTRACT:

Background

Previous research on data extraction methods in systematic reviews has focused on single aspects of the process. We aimed to provide a deeper insight into these methods by analysing a current sample of reviews.

Methods

We included systematic reviews of health interventions in humans published in English. We analysed 75 Cochrane reviews from May and June 2020 and a random sample of non-Cochrane reviews published in the same period and retrieved from Medline. We linked reviews with protocols and study registrations. We collected information on preparing, piloting, and performing data extraction and on use of software to assist review conduct (automation tools). Data were extracted by one author, with 20% extracted in duplicate. Data were analysed descriptively.

Results

Of the 152 included reviews, 77 reported use of a standardized extraction form (51%); 42 provided information on the type of form used (28%); 24 on piloting (16%); 58 on what data was collected (38%); 133 on the extraction method (88%); 107 on resolving disagreements (70%); 103 on methods to obtain additional data or information (68%); 52 on procedures to avoid data errors (34%); and 47 on methods to deal with multiple study reports (31%). Items were more frequently reported in Cochrane than non-Cochrane reviews. The data extraction form used was published in 10 reviews (7%). Use of software was rarely reported except for statistical analysis software and use of RevMan and GRADEpro GDT in Cochrane reviews. Covidence was the most frequent automation tool used: 18 reviews used it for study selection (12%) and 9 for data extraction (6%).

Conclusions

Reporting of data extraction methods in systematic reviews is limited, especially in non-Cochrane reviews. This includes core items of data extraction such as methods used to manage disagreements. Few reviews currently use software to assist data extraction and review conduct. Our results can serve as a baseline to assess the uptake of such tools in future analyses.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-021-01438-z.

SUBMITTER: Buchter R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8571672 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundChinese herbal medicines (CHMs) are the major interventions of traditional Chinese medicine (TCM), which are typically administered as either single herbs or formulas. The Cochrane systematic reviews (SRs) of CHMs are essential references for evaluating the efficacy and safety of CHMs interventions; they are expected to be accurate and reliable. This study aimed to assess the reporting quality of these SRs, particularly whether necessary information related to CHM was adequately reported.MethodsThe Cochrane Database was systematically searched for all SRs of CHM that were published up to 31 December 2017. The primary analysis was to assess their reporting quality based on 27-item of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and 9-item of CHM-related information designed according to TCM theory. Descriptive statistics were additionally used to analyze their baseline characteristics.ResultsA total of 109 Cochrane SRs of CHM were identified from 1999 to 2017. For 27-item of PRISMA, 26 had the reporting compliances higher than 50%, of which 11 were fully reporting (100%). However, for CHM-related information, 65 (59.6%) SRs did not report the specific name of the CHM in the title, 42 (38.5%) lacked TCM-related rationales in the introduction, 62 (56.9%) did not include CHM-related characteristics in the additional analyses, and 77 (70.6%) did not analyze CHM results in terms of TCM-related theories in the discussion. Of 97 SRs that included clinical trials, 38 (39.2%) did not provide the details of composition and dosage of CHMs, 85 (87.6%) did not report the CHM sources, 13 (13.4%) did not provide the dosage form, 95 (97.9%) lacked CHM quality control information, and 57 (58.8%) did not describe details of the controls. For 62 (72.9%) of 85 SRs that included meta-analysis, it was impossible to assess whether meta-analysis had been properly conducted due to inadequate reporting of CHM interventions.ConclusionAlthough the Cochrane SRs of CHM showed reporting compliance with PRISMA checklist, their reporting quality needs improvement, especially about full reporting of CHM interventions and of TCM-related rationales. Reporting guideline of "PRISMA extension for CHM interventions" should be developed thus to improve their quality.

Project description:ObjectiveSystematic reviews can include cluster-randomised controlled trials (C-RCTs), which require different analysis compared with standard individual-randomised controlled trials. However, it is not known whether review authors follow the methodological and reporting guidance when including these trials. The aim of this study was to assess the methodological and reporting practice of Cochrane reviews that included C-RCTs against criteria developed from existing guidance.MethodsCriteria were developed, based on methodological literature and personal experience supervising review production and quality. Criteria were grouped into four themes: identifying, reporting, assessing risk of bias, and analysing C-RCTs. The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews was searched (2nd December 2013), and the 50 most recent reviews that included C-RCTs were retrieved. Each review was then assessed using the criteria.ResultsThe 50 reviews we identified were published by 26 Cochrane Review Groups between June 2013 and November 2013. For identifying C-RCTs, only 56% identified that C-RCTs were eligible for inclusion in the review in the eligibility criteria. For reporting C-RCTs, only eight (24%) of the 33 reviews reported the method of cluster adjustment for their included C-RCTs. For assessing risk of bias, only one review assessed all five C-RCT-specific risk-of-bias criteria. For analysing C-RCTs, of the 27 reviews that presented unadjusted data, only nine (33%) provided a warning that confidence intervals may be artificially narrow. Of the 34 reviews that reported data from unadjusted C-RCTs, only 13 (38%) excluded the unadjusted results from the meta-analyses.ConclusionsThe methodological and reporting practices in Cochrane reviews incorporating C-RCTs could be greatly improved, particularly with regard to analyses. Criteria developed as part of the current study could be used by review authors or editors to identify errors and improve the quality of published systematic reviews incorporating C-RCTs.

Project description:ObjectivesHigh-quality reporting of treatment details can aid replication of study results in real-world clinical practice. The Standards for Reporting Interventions in Clinical Trials of Acupuncture (STRICTA) is a reporting guideline for key elements of acupuncture interventions in clinical trials. This study used STRICTA to investigate whether Cochrane reviews of acupuncture adequately report important treatment details.DesignSystematic reviewMethodsCochrane reviews of acupuncture were identified from The Cochrane Library (issue 7, 2012). Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) included in the reviews and published after 2005 were obtained. Using STRICTA, we extracted acupuncture-related information from the Cochrane reviews and the RCTs. The characteristics of the included studies' table were the major source of intervention information from Cochrane reviews. Reporting quality of acupuncture interventions in Cochrane reviews was assessed and compared with the respective RCTs.Results25 Cochrane reviews of acupuncture and 92 RCTs met the selection criteria. Cochrane reviews were 16% less likely to report the acupuncture-related items of STRICTA than RCTs (risk ratio 0.84, 95% CI 0.79 to 0.88, I(2)=8%). Information was significantly better reported for 10 of the 15 treatment-group items of STRICTA in RCTs than in Cochrane reviews (p<0.05), while four items did so without statistical significance. One item related to practitioner background was significantly better reported in Cochrane reviews.ConclusionsReporting quality of treatment details in Cochrane reviews of acupuncture was insufficient with regard to STRICTA, even though such information was readily reported in RCTs. The overall quality of reporting of the RCTs, while better than the reviews, was also often suboptimal. Use of STRICTA guideline during the review process is recommended to adequately report the key treatment components in Cochrane reviews of acupuncture. The potential impact of STRICTA to the replicability and utilisation of reviews in future research and practice needs to be investigated.