Introduction
Data extraction forms are fundamental to systematic reviews, acting as the structured framework for gathering essential information from various research studies. These forms ensure consistency and accuracy in data collection, enabling researchers to effectively analyze, interpret, and synthesize findings from diverse sources. This article offers a comprehensive guide to designing robust data extraction forms for systematic reviews, encompassing key considerations, best practices, potential challenges, and practical recommendations.
In the realm of systematic reviews, well-designed data extraction forms are indispensable for several reasons:
Enhanced Accuracy and Reduced Bias: Standardized forms, coupled with clear instructions, minimize the risk of subjective interpretation and inconsistencies during data extraction, thereby promoting objectivity and accuracy. By providing a structured approach, these forms help researchers avoid inadvertently selecting data that supports their preconceived notions, ensuring a more unbiased and reliable review.
Streamlined Data Synthesis: Structured data collection through well-designed forms simplifies the process of comparing and analyzing findings across different studies. This facilitates a more efficient and meaningful synthesis of evidence, allowing researchers to draw robust conclusions and identify patterns in the data.
Improved Efficiency: Predefined forms streamline the data extraction process, saving researchers valuable time and resources. By providing a clear framework for data collection, these forms eliminate the need for researchers to develop their own ad-hoc methods, allowing them to focus on the critical task of analyzing and interpreting the data.
Increased Transparency and Reproducibility: Clear and comprehensive forms enhance the transparency of the review process, enabling other researchers to understand and potentially replicate the data extraction methods. This transparency is crucial for ensuring the credibility and trustworthiness of systematic reviews, as it allows others to scrutinize the methods used and assess the validity of the findings.
Precise and Robust Conclusions: The quality of a systematic review hinges on the accuracy and relevance of the extracted data. Well-designed forms ensure that researchers focus on extracting the key information that directly addresses the research question. This precision is essential for drawing valid conclusions and making informed recommendations based on the synthesized evidence.
1. Define the Research Question and Scope
The foundation of any data extraction form lies in a clearly defined research question and scope for the systematic review. This initial step guides the selection of relevant data elements to be extracted from each study. For instance, a review investigating the effectiveness of a specific intervention will necessitate different data elements compared to a review examining the prevalence of a disease3.
2. Identify Relevant Data Elements
Once the research question and inclusion/exclusion criteria are established, the next step involves determining the specific data elements to be extracted from each study. These elements may include:
- Bibliographic Information: Author(s), year of publication, title, journal, DOI 4
- Study Characteristics: Study design, sample size, intervention details, outcome measures 4
- Participant Characteristics: Age, sex, ethnicity, disease/condition, other relevant factors 4
- Outcome Data: Results of statistical analyses, effect sizes, measures of variability 4
- Risk of Bias Assessment: Information related to the quality of the study and potential sources of bias 5
3. Selecting Data Sources
When designing data extraction forms, it's crucial to consider the strengths and limitations of different data sources. Each source offers unique advantages and disadvantages, and selecting the appropriate sources can significantly impact the quality and comprehensiveness of the review. Here's a summary of common data sources used in systematic reviews:
| Source | Strengths | Limitations |
|---|---|---|
| Journal articles | Easily accessible, quick data extraction, often include useful information about methods and results | May not be available for all studies, potential for reporting biases, may contain limited study characteristics and methods, can omit outcomes, especially harms |
| Conference abstracts | Can help identify unpublished studies | Often include limited information about study design, may contain unclear information for meta-analysis, potential for double-counting studies if not correctly linked to other reports |
| Trial registrations | Can identify otherwise unpublished trials, may contain information about design, risk of bias, and results not included in other public sources, can link multiple reports of the same study | Limited to more recent studies that comply with registration requirements, often contain limited information about trial design and quantitative results, may report only harms occurring above a certain threshold, may be inaccurate or incomplete for trials whose methods have changed |
| Regulatory information | Can identify studies not reported in other public sources, may describe details of methods and results not found in other sources | Available only for studies submitted to regulators, available for approved indications but not 'off-label' uses, not always in a standard format, not often available for older products |
| Clinical study reports (CSRs) | Contain detailed information about study characteristics, methods, and results, can be particularly useful for identifying detailed information about harms, describe aggregate results which are easy to analyze | Do not exist or are difficult to obtain for most studies, require more time to obtain and analyze than public sources |
| Individual participant data | Allow for contemporary statistical methods and standardized analyses across studies, permit additional analyses (e.g., subgroup analyses) | Require considerable expertise and time to obtain and analyze, may lead to the same results as aggregate reports, may not be necessary if a CSR is available |
4. Choose a Data Extraction Tool
A variety of tools are available for creating data extraction forms, ranging from basic spreadsheets to specialized software. The choice of tool should be guided by the complexity of the review, the number of reviewers involved, and the available resources. Here's a comparison of common data extraction tools:
| Tool | Advantages | Disadvantages |
|---|---|---|
| Spreadsheets (e.g., Excel) | Simple to use, widely accessible, suitable for smaller reviews, functions like drop-down menus and range checks can help prevent data entry errors | Can become unwieldy for large reviews, limited functionality for complex data structures |
| Relational Databases (e.g., Microsoft Access) | Can handle complex datasets with multiple categories and relationships, offers greater flexibility and data management capabilities | Requires more technical expertise, may be more time-consuming to set up |
| Systematic Review Software (e.g., Covidence, DistillerSR, RevMan) | Offers specialized features for data extraction, risk of bias assessment, and data synthesis, some platforms provide templates and automated functions, can facilitate collaboration among reviewers | Can be expensive, may have limitations in terms of flexibility or customization |
It's important to note that complex systematic reviews, especially those involving multiple interventions or outcomes, may benefit from using relational databases. These databases can efficiently manage data with multiple dependencies, allowing for more sophisticated analyses and data management12.
5. Structure the Data Extraction Form
Organize the data extraction form in a clear and logical manner to facilitate efficient data entry and analysis. Use headings, subheadings, and clear labels for each data element. Consider grouping related elements together to improve readability and ensure that reviewers can easily locate the information they need13.
6. Provide Clear Instructions
Include detailed instructions for each data element, specifying how to extract and record the information. Clearly define any codes or abbreviations used to ensure consistency across reviewers and minimize the risk of misinterpretation13.
7. Pilot Test the Form
Before commencing the full data extraction process, it's crucial to pilot test the form on a small sample of included studies. This pilot testing helps identify any ambiguities, missing elements, or areas for improvement in the form's design and instructions. It also allows you to determine if any fields should be added or clarified to ensure the form captures all the necessary information5.
8. Train Reviewers
Provide thorough training to all reviewers involved in data extraction. Ensure they understand the instructions, coding system, and procedures for resolving any discrepancies that may arise during the extraction process. Training should also cover the use of the chosen data extraction tool and any relevant software features8.
- Independent Extraction: To minimize bias and improve accuracy, have at least two reviewers independently extract data from each study. This independent extraction helps to identify any potential errors or inconsistencies in interpretation3.
- Blinding: Whenever feasible, blind reviewers to the authors, journal, and study results to reduce the risk of bias. Blinding helps to ensure that reviewers are not influenced by preconceived notions or prior knowledge about the studies, promoting a more objective assessment of the data8.
- Data Checking: Implement procedures for checking the accuracy of extracted data, such as double-entry or comparison of results between reviewers. These checks help to identify and correct any errors that may have occurred during the extraction process. Additionally, regularly review the collected data for any errors or inconsistencies to maintain data quality throughout the review8.
- Documentation: Maintain a detailed record of any decisions made during the data extraction process, including changes to the form or coding system. This documentation helps to ensure transparency and allows for tracking of any modifications made to the data extraction process8.
- Missing Data: It's common for studies to not report all the desired data elements. Develop strategies for handling missing data, such as contacting authors for clarification or using imputation methods to estimate missing values. For example, if a study does not report the standard deviation for a particular outcome, you might consider contacting the authors to request this information or using imputation techniques based on data from similar studies16.
- Unclear or Inconsistent Reporting: Variations in reporting styles and terminology across studies can pose challenges for data extraction. Provide clear guidance to reviewers on how to handle such situations, including standardized definitions for key terms and instructions for interpreting ambiguous or inconsistent information16.
- Unit of Analysis Issues: Ensure that the data extraction form is designed to capture data at the appropriate level of analysis. This might be the individual participant level, the study arm level, or the cluster level, depending on the research question and the design of the included studies. Mismatches in the unit of analysis can lead to inaccurate or misleading results16.
- Extracting Too Much or Too Little Information: Finding the right balance in the amount of data extracted is crucial. Extracting too much information can lead to unnecessarily long forms and wasted time, while extracting too little information may result in missing crucial data that could impact the review's conclusions. Carefully consider the research question and the potential relevance of each data element to avoid these pitfalls18.
- Software Limitations: Some data extraction software may have limitations in terms of flexibility, customization, or data management capabilities. Consider these limitations when choosing a tool and ensure that the selected software can adequately handle the specific needs of the review12.
Data quality and accuracy are paramount in systematic reviews. Implement the following strategies to ensure reliable data extraction:
- Develop a detailed protocol: Clearly outline the data extraction process, including the selection of data elements, extraction methods, and quality control procedures. A well-defined protocol provides a roadmap for the review and helps to ensure consistency and transparency6.
- Use standardized forms: Employ well-designed forms with clear instructions and coding systems to minimize variability and error. Standardized forms ensure that all reviewers are extracting data in the same way, reducing the risk of inconsistencies6.
- Pilot test the forms: Identify and address any potential issues with the forms before starting the full data extraction process. Pilot testing helps to refine the forms and ensure they are fit for purpose6.
- Train reviewers thoroughly: Ensure reviewers understand the protocol and data extraction procedures. Thorough training helps to minimize errors and ensures that all reviewers are applying the same standards6.
- Conduct independent extraction: Have at least two reviewers independently extract data from each study. Independent extraction helps to identify any discrepancies or errors in interpretation6.
- Implement data checking procedures: Use methods such as double-entry or comparison of results to identify and correct errors. Data checking procedures are essential for ensuring the accuracy of the extracted data6.
To illustrate the practical application of the principles discussed, here are some examples of data extraction forms used in published systematic reviews:
- Data Extraction Form Example (suitable for small-scale literature review of a few dozen studies): This example was used to gather data for a poster reporting a literature review of studies of interventions to increase Emergency Department throughput. The poster can be downloaded from http://hsrc.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/libfacpres/62/ 9
- Data Extraction Form for the Cochrane Review Group (uncoded & used to extract fine-detail/many variables): This example showcases the thoroughness of the Cochrane research methodology and provides a comprehensive template for data extraction in intervention reviews9.
- PIECES approach: This approach, designed by a librarian at Texas A&M, utilizes Excel workbooks to organize data extraction for systematic reviews. The PIECES workbook is downloadable from this guide7.
These examples demonstrate the variety of approaches to data extraction form design and can serve as valuable resources for researchers developing their own forms.
Based on the information presented in this article, here are some practical recommendations for researchers designing data extraction forms for systematic reviews:
- Start with a clear research question: Define the research question and scope of the review before designing the form.
- Identify essential data elements: Determine the specific data elements needed to answer the research question.
- Choose the right tool: Select a data extraction tool that suits the complexity of the review and the available resources.
- Structure the form logically: Organize the form in a clear and logical manner with clear headings and labels.
- Provide detailed instructions: Include clear and concise instructions for each data element.
- Pilot test the form: Test the form on a small sample of studies to identify any areas for improvement.
- Train reviewers thoroughly: Ensure all reviewers understand the form and the data extraction process.
- Implement quality control procedures: Use independent extraction, blinding, and data checking to ensure accuracy.
- Document all decisions: Maintain a record of all decisions made during the data extraction process.
By following these recommendations, researchers can design robust data extraction forms that contribute to the rigor and reliability of their systematic reviews.
Designing effective data extraction forms is a cornerstone of conducting rigorous and reliable systematic reviews. By meticulously considering the research question, identifying relevant data elements, selecting appropriate tools, and adhering to best practices for data extraction, researchers can ensure the accurate and consistent collection of data. This meticulous approach ultimately leads to more robust and informative evidence syntheses, contributing to a more reliable and impactful body of scientific knowledge. The quality of data extraction forms directly influences the overall quality and reliability of systematic reviews, underscoring the importance of investing time and effort in their careful design and implementation.
1. Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation - PubMed Central, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC8361807/
2. Data Extraction Tip 4: Extract the Right Amount of Data - Covidence, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://www.covidence.org/blog/data-extraction-tip-4/
3. Extracting data & assessing quality - Systematic reviews, scoping reviews and other evidence syntheses - Research Guides at Brock University, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://researchguides.library.brocku.ca/c.php?g=713737&p=5087487
4. Step 8: Data Extraction - Systematic Reviews - LibGuides - A.T. Still University, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://guides.atsu.edu/systematicreviews/data-extraction
5. 7.6.3 Preparing for data extraction, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/chapter_7/7_6_3_preparing_for_data_extraction.htm
6. Chapter 5: Collecting data - Cochrane Training, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-05
7. Systematic reviews and other evidence synthesis projects: 7. Extract Data - Library Guides, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://guides.lib.uw.edu/hsl/sr/extract
8. Systematic Reviews: Step 7: Extract Data from Included Studies - Subject Research Guides, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://guides.lib.unc.edu/systematic-reviews/extract-data
9. Systematic Reviews: Data Extraction, Study Characteristics, Results - Research Guides, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://guides.himmelfarb.gwu.edu/systematic_review/data-extraction
10. 10. Data extraction - Systematic review guide, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://imperial.libguides.com/Systematicreview/data_extraction
11. Systematic Reviews: Data Extraction - Research Guides, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://mdanderson.libguides.com/c.php?g=384755&p=9133263
12. Data extraction and comparison for complex systematic reviews: a step-by-step guideline and an implementation example using open-source software, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC10691069/
13. Development, testing and use of data extraction forms in systematic reviews: a review of methodological guidance - PubMed, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33076832/
14. 10. Data Extraction - A Guide to Evidence Synthesis - LibGuides at Cornell University, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://guides.library.cornell.edu/evidence-synthesis/data-extraction
15. guides.lib.unc.edu, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://guides.lib.unc.edu/systematic-reviews/extract-data#:~:text=For%20accuracy%2C%20two%20or%20more,by%20using%20a%20computer%20program.
16. A practical guide: Data Extraction for Intervention Systematic Reviews | Covidence, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://www.covidence.org/wp-content/uploads/2024/01/A_practical_guide-Data-Extraction_for_Intervention_Systematic_Reviews_2024.pdf
17. researchguides.library.brocku.ca, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://researchguides.library.brocku.ca/c.php?g=713737&p=5087487#:~:text=Plan%20carefully%20to%20ensure%20the,it%20is%20clear%20and%20comprehensive.&text=If%20published%20data%20is%20missing,the%20study%20authors%20for%20details.
18. 6. Data Coding and Data Extraction - Collaboration for Environmental Evidence, accessed on January 21, 2025, https://environmentalevidence.org/information-for-authors/6-data-coding-and-data-extraction/