| Téléchargement | - Voir la version finale : A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews (PDF, 393 Kio)
- Voir les données supplémentaires : A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews (PDF, 1.1 Mio)
|
|---|
| DOI | Trouver le DOI : https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.07.005 |
|---|
| Auteur | Rechercher : Li, Tianjing; Rechercher : Saldanha, Ian J.; Rechercher : Jap, Jens; Rechercher : Smith, Bryant T.; Rechercher : Canner, Joseph; Rechercher : Hutfless, Susan M.; Rechercher : Branch, Vernal; Rechercher : Carini, Simona; Rechercher : Chan, Wiley; Rechercher : de Bruijn, Berry1; Rechercher : Wallace, Byron C.; Rechercher : Walsh, Sandra A.; Rechercher : Whamond, Elizabeth J.; Rechercher : Murad, M. Hassan; Rechercher : Sim, Ida; Rechercher : Berlin, Jesse A.; Rechercher : Lau, Joseph; Rechercher : Dickersin, Kay; Rechercher : Schmid, Christopher H. |
|---|
| Affiliation | - Conseil national de recherches Canada. Technologies numériques
|
|---|
| Format | Texte, Article |
|---|
| Sujet | data abstraction; software application; accuracy; efficiency; systematic review; randomized cross-over trial |
|---|
| Résumé | 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. |
|---|
| Date de publication | 2019-07-11 |
|---|
| Maison d’édition | Elsevier |
|---|
| Licence | |
|---|
| Dans | |
|---|
| Langue | anglais |
|---|
| Publications évaluées par des pairs | Oui |
|---|
| Exporter la notice | Exporter en format RIS |
|---|
| Signaler une correction | Signaler une correction (s'ouvre dans un nouvel onglet) |
|---|
| Identificateur de l’enregistrement | bd584d7c-dc06-45e4-87a7-3d5511df4cf1 |
|---|
| Enregistrement créé | 2020-11-16 |
|---|
| Enregistrement modifié | 2022-03-10 |
|---|
