| Download | - View final version: A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews (PDF, 393 KiB)
- View supplementary information: A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews (PDF, 1.1 MiB)
|
|---|
| DOI | Resolve DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.005 |
|---|
| Author | Search for: Li, Tianjing; Search for: Saldanha, Ian J.; Search for: Jap, Jens; Search for: Smith, Bryant T.; Search for: Canner, Joseph; Search for: Hutfless, Susan M.; Search for: Branch, Vernal; Search for: Carini, Simona; Search for: Chan, Wiley; Search for: de Bruijn, Berry1; Search for: Wallace, Byron C.; Search for: Walsh, Sandra A.; Search for: Whamond, Elizabeth J.; Search for: Murad, M. Hassan; Search for: Sim, Ida; Search for: Berlin, Jesse A.; Search for: Lau, Joseph; Search for: Dickersin, Kay; Search for: Schmid, Christopher H. |
|---|
| Affiliation | - National Research Council of Canada. Digital Technologies
|
|---|
| Format | Text, Article |
|---|
| Subject | data abstraction; software application; accuracy; efficiency; systematic review; randomized cross-over trial |
|---|
| Abstract | Objectives: Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA) is a software for linking items abstracted into a data collection form for a systematic review to their locations in a study report. We conducted a randomized cross-over trial that compared DAA-facilitated single-data abstraction plus verification (“DAA verification”), single data abstraction plus verification (“regular verification”), and independent dual data abstraction plus adjudication (“independent abstraction”). Study Design and Setting: This study is an online randomized cross-over trial with 26 pairs of data abstractors. Each pair abstracted data from six articles, two per approach. Outcomes were the proportion of errors and time taken. Results: Overall proportion of errors was 17% for DAA verification, 16% for regular verification, and 15% for independent abstraction. DAA verification was associated with higher odds of errors when compared with regular verification (adjusted odds ratio [OR] = 1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99–1.17) or independent abstraction (adjusted OR = 1.12; 95% CI: 1.03–1.22). For each article, DAA verification took 20 minutes (95% CI: 1–40) longer than regular verification, but 46 minutes (95% CI: 26 to 66) shorter than independent abstraction. Conclusion: Independent abstraction may only be necessary for complex data items. DAA provides an audit trail that is crucial for reproducible research. |
|---|
| Publication date | 2019-07-11 |
|---|
| Publisher | Elsevier |
|---|
| Licence | |
|---|
| In | |
|---|
| Language | English |
|---|
| Peer reviewed | Yes |
|---|
| Export citation | Export as RIS |
|---|
| Report a correction | Report a correction (opens in a new tab) |
|---|
| Record identifier | bd584d7c-dc06-45e4-87a7-3d5511df4cf1 |
|---|
| Record created | 2020-11-16 |
|---|
| Record modified | 2022-03-10 |
|---|
