Upload
pubricahealthcare
View
0
Download
0
Tags:
Embed Size (px)
DESCRIPTION
1. Eligibility and Documenting decisions 2. Study Location and demographic details 3. Study techniques 4. Statistical analysis: 5. Participants Continue Reading: https://bit.ly/2SrjSkK For our services: https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/ Why Pubrica: When you order our services, We promise you the following – Plagiarism free | always on Time | 24*7 customer support | Written to international Standard | Unlimited Revisions support | Medical writing Expert | Publication Support | Biostatistical experts | High-quality Subject Matter Experts. Contact us: Web: https://pubrica.com/ Blog: https://pubrica.com/academy/ Email: [email protected] WhatsApp : +91 9884350006 United Kingdom: +44- 74248 10299
Citation preview
Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 1
What Data to Extract for Systematic Review
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica, [email protected]
In-Brief
Systematic literature (Qualitative, non-meta-analysis)
review writing is a protocol-driven process that
demands researchers to extract, analyse and present
an exhaustive summary of the latest yet
apt literature for their specific studies in the
prescribed format along with bias/evidence quality
figures. It primarily focuses on clear, structured
questions that need to be answered using an in-depth
search strategy.
Systematic review authors should decide ahead of time
what information will be needed for their precise
review and build up a technique for acquiring them.
Although there are several software’s (e.g., Covidence,
Colandr, Rayyan, CREBP, EPPI-Reviewer 4,
Distiller, JBI SUMARI tool, Systematic Review Data
Repository (SRDR), Systematic Review Toolbox
available for collecting data, its researchers’
knowledge and skills play a major role in the
extraction.
Keywords: Conducting a systematic review, systematic
review writing, writing a systematic review, systematic
review service, systematic review writing service,
PRISMA statement, data extraction, Single or
multicentre study, possible irreconcilable
circumstances, dynamic comparator, dichotomous
information, post-meditation time point
I. WHAT SHOULD EXTRACTED DATA SHOULD
HELP US TO DRIVE
The data extracted should sufficiently depict the
included investigations, support the development of
tables and figures, encourage the risk of bias
assessment, and empower syntheses and meta-analyses.
Review authors ought to acquaint themselves with
detailing rules for systematic review and the PRISMA
statement; to guarantee that significant components and
areas are incorporated.
II. ITEMS TO BE CONSIDERED FOR DATA
EXTRACTION AND WRITING A SYSTEMATIC
REVIEW
Data extractor name, data extraction date, identification
features of a report from which we are going to extract
the data is also part of the extraction process.
1. Eligibility and Documenting decisions
Confirm qualification of the examination for the review including reference (first
author/year/journal citation)
Visually scanning references lists from relevant studies
Handsearching key journals from identified studies
Contacting study authors, experts, manufacturers, and other organizations
Citation searching
Reasons for exclusion of the study.
2. Study Location and demographic details
Country
Location
Race / Religion if its important
Gender
Age
Medical Condition (DM or HTN)
3. Study techniques Study plan:
Parallel, factorial, hybrid, bunch parts of the plan for randomized preliminaries, and
additionally study configuration highlights for
non-randomized examinations.
Single or multicenter study; if multicenter, a number of enlisting focuses.
Recruitment and testing methods utilized (counting at the degree of individual members
and bunches/destinations if significant).
Enrolment start and end dates; length of member follow-up.
Details of irregular arrangement age, distribution grouping covering, and veiling for
mailto:[email protected]://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/
Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 2
randomized preliminaries, and strategies used
to forestall and control for perplexing, choice
predispositions, and data inclinations for non-
randomized investigations.
Methods used to forestall and address missing information.
Figure: PRISMA flow chart depicting the article filtering process.
4. Statistical analysis:
Analysis unit (for example, singular member, Centre, town, body part)
Statistical techniques utilized whenever registered impact gauges are separated from
reports, incorporating any covariates
remembered for the measurable model
Likelihood of revealing and other biases.
Funding sources or other material help for the study.
Authors' monetary relationship and other possible irreconcilable circumstances.
5. Participants
Setting
Region(s) and country/nations from which study members were enlisted
Study qualification measures, including symptomatic rules
Qualities of members toward the start (or gauge) of the investigation (for example, age,
sex, comorbidity, financial status).
https://pubrica.com/academy/latest-topics/how-to-extract-quantitative-data-for-systematic-review-and-meta-analysis/
Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 2
6. Intervention Depiction of the intervention(s) and examination
intervention(s), preferably with adequate detail for
replication:
Components, courses of conveyance, portions, timing, recurrence, intercession conventions,
length of mediation
Factors pertinent to execution (for example, staff capabilities, hardware prerequisites)
The integrity of intercessions (for example, how much indicated methodology or segments
of the mediation were executed as arranged)
Description of co-intercessions
Definition of 'control' gatherings (for example, no intercession, fake treatment, negligibly
dynamic comparator, or segments of regular
consideration)
Components, portion, timing, recurrence
For observational examinations: depiction of how intercession status was evaluated; length
of openness, aggregate openness.
7. Outcomes For each pre-indicated result area (for example,
uneasiness) in the systematic review:
Whether there is proof that the resulting space was evaluated (particularly significant if the
result was surveyed yet the outcomes not
introduced.
Measurement apparatus or instrument (counting meaning of clinical results or
endpoints); for a scale, name of the scale (for
example, the Hamilton Anxiety Rating Scale),
upper and lower cutoff points, and whether a
high or low score is good, meanings of any
limits if fitting.
Specific metric (for example, post-intercession anxiety, or change in uneasiness from pattern
to a post-meditation time point, or post-
meditation presence of nervousness (yes/no))
Method of total (for example, the mean and standard deviation of tension scores in each
gathering or extent of individuals with
nervousness)
Timing of result estimations (for example, appraisals at the end of the eight-week
intercession period, occasions happening
during the eight-week mediation period)
Adverse results need exceptional consideration relying upon whether they are gathered
methodically or non-deliberately (for example,
by deliberate report).
8. Results • For each group, and for every result at each
time point: number of members arbitrarily relegated
and remembered for the study; and number of members
who pulled out, were lost to follow-up or were rejected
(with purposes behind each)
• Summary information for each group (for
example, 2×2 table for dichotomous information;
means and standard deviations for consistent
information)
• Between-bunch appraises that evaluate the
impact of the intercession on the result, and their
accuracy (for example, hazard proportion, chances
proportion, and mean contrast)
• If subgroup investigation is arranged, similar
data should be extricated for every member subgroup.
9. Miscellaneous
• Key conclusion of the author.
• Reference to other pertinent
investigations
• Correspondence required
• Miscellaneous remarks from the
author of the study or by the review authors.
III. OTHER INFORMATION TO COLLECT
The authors gather the critical finishes of the included
study as detailed by its authors. It isn't important to
report these ends in the survey, yet they ought to be
utilized to confirm the consequences of the study
attempted by the review authors, especially
corresponding to the course of impact. Further remarks
by the study authors, for instance, any clarifications
they accommodate startling discoveries, might be
noted. References to different studies that are referred
to in the investigation report might be helpful, in spite
of the fact that review authors ought to know about the
chance of reference inclination. Documentation of any
correspondence with the examination creators is
significant for review straightforwardness.
IV. CONCLUSION
Preferably, data just should be extricated once and
ought to be put away in a safe and stable area for future
updates of the survey, whether or not the first review
authors or an alternate gathering of authors update the
Systematic review. Normalizing and sharing
information assortment apparatuses just as information
the board frameworks among review authors are
working in comparative subject regions can smooth out
https://pubrica.com/academy/medical-writing/significant-advancement-of-home-diagnostics-in-the-clinical-trial/
Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 3
deliberate review creation. Review authors have the
chance to work with trial lists, diary editors, funders,
controllers, and different partners to make study
information (for example, CSRs, IPD, and some other
type of study information) freely accessible, expanding
the straightforwardness of study. Pubrica Systematic
Review Support Service is a pilot program to support
researchers in performing high-quality systematic
reviews.
REFERENCE
1. Davis AL, Miller JD. The European Medicines Agency and publication of clinical study report a
challenge for the US FDA. JAMA 2017; 317: 905-
906.
2. Denniston AK, Holland GN, Kidess A, Nussenblatt RB, Okada AA, Rosenbaum JT, Dick AD.
Heterogeneity of primary outcome measures used
in clinical trials of treatments for intermediate,
posterior, and panuveitis. Orphanet Journal of Rare
Diseases 2015; 10: 97.
3. Lewin S, Hendry M, Chandler J, Oxman AD, Michie S, Shepperd S, Reeves BC, Tugwell P,
Hannes K, Rehfuess EA, Welch V, McKenzie JE,
Burford B, Petkovic J, Anderson LM, Harris J,
Noyes J. Assessing the complexity of interventions
within systematic reviews: development, content,
and use of a new tool (iCAT_SR). BMC Medical
Research Methodology 2017; 17: 76.
4. Li G, Abbade LPF, Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N,
Bantoto B, Luo C, Shams I, Shahid H, Chang Y,
Sun G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Levine MAH,
Adachi JD, Thabane L. A scoping review of
comparisons between abstracts and full reports in
primary biomedical research. BMC Medical
Research Methodology 2017; 17: 181.
5. Liu ZM, Saldanha IJ, Margolis D, Dumville JC, Cullum NA. Outcomes in Cochrane systematic
reviews related to wound care: an investigation into
prespecification. Wound Repair and
Regeneration 2017; 25: 292-308.
https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/https://pubrica.com/services/research-services/systematic-review/