A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs. electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews
| Autor: | Berry de Bruijn, Joseph K. Canner, Simona Carini, Christopher H. Schmid, Tianjing Li, Kay Dickersin, Wiley Chan, Jesse A. Berlin, Ian J. Saldanha, Bryant T Smith, Elizabeth J. Whamond, Vernal Branch, Byron C. Wallace, Susan Hutfless, Joseph Lau, Ida Sim, Sandra A. Walsh, M. Hassan Murad, Jens Jap |
|---|---|
| Rok vydání: | 2019 |
| Předmět: |
Epidemiology
Computer science Abstracting and Indexing law.invention Odds 03 medical and health sciences Random Allocation Young Adult 0302 clinical medicine systematic review Randomized controlled trial law Statistics Odds Ratio Humans 030212 general & internal medicine Abstraction Data abstraction Data collection Cross-Over Studies accuracy Data Collection software application Odds ratio Confidence interval Systematic review efficiency data abstraction randomized cross-over trial 030217 neurology & neurosurgery Software Systematic Reviews as Topic |
| Zdroj: | Journal of clinical epidemiology. 115 |
| ISSN: | 1878-5921 |
| Popis: | 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. |
| Databáze: | OpenAIRE |
| Externí odkaz: |
|
Full Text from ScienceDirect