Writing a public health research grant proposal | role of scientific experts - Pubrica
Different sources of data used to extract for writing a systematic review – Pubrica
-
Upload
pubricahealthcare -
Category
Services
-
view
0 -
download
0
description
Transcript of Different sources of data used to extract for writing a systematic review – Pubrica
Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 1
What are the Different Sources of Data Used
to Extract for Writing a Systematic Review
Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica, [email protected]
In-Brief
Systematic reviews have studied rather than reports
as the unit of interest. So,many reports of the same
study need to be identified and linked together
before or after data extraction.Because of the
growing abundance of data sources (e.g., studies
registers, regulatory records, and clinical research
reports), review authors can determine which
sources can include the most relevant details for the
review and provide a strategy in place to address
contradictions if evidence were inconsistent
throughout sources.
I. INTRODUCTION
Systematic analyses seek to find all important trials to
their study issue and synthesise information about the
design, risk of bias, and outcomes of those studies. As
a result, a systematic study is heavily dependent on
interpreting and analysing evidence from these
analyses. For systematic analyses, data collected
should be reliable, complete, and available for future
updating and data sharing. The methods used to make
these choices must be straightforward, and they
should be selected with prejudgments and human
error in mind .We define data collection methods used
in systematic reviews, including data extraction
directly from journal articles and other case study
reports.
II. DIFFERENT SOURCES OF DATA
1. Journal articles are the bulk of data in
systematic reviews that comes from this source.
It's worth noting that a thesis can be published in
many journal papers, each reporting on a
different part of the research (e.g. design, main
results, and other results).
2. Abstracts from conferences are widely
accessible. On the other hand, conferencing
abstracts are extremely subjective in terms of
efficiency, precision, and level of description.
3. Errata and letters will provide valuable
knowledge about experiments, such as critical
flaws and retractions, and research reviewers can
investigate them where they are found .
4. Trials registers keep track of studies that have
been designed or begun. They've become a
valuable resource for locating experiments,
matching reported outcomes and effects to those
expected, and collecting feasibility and safety
evidence that isn't readily accessible elsewhere.
5. Clinical research reports (CSRs) are
unabridged and concise accounts of the clinical
challenge, nature, behaviour, and outcomes of
clinical trials that meet the International
Conference on Harmonisation's format and
content guidelines (ICH). Pharmaceutical firms
apply CSRs and other required documents to
regulatory authorities to secure marketing
clearance for medications and biologics for a
particular indication.
6. Regulatory reviews, such as those obtainable
from the US Food and Drug Administration or
the European Medicines Agency, may offer
invaluable information about drug, biologic, and
medical product trials applied for marketing
approval by manufacturers. These papers are
summaries of CSRs and associated documents
prepared by agency personnel as part of
authorising goods for sale after a reanalysis of
the initial trial results.
7. Individual participant data (IPD) is normally
requested directly from the study's researchers,
or it can be found in open data repositories.
Variables that reflect each participant's profile,
intervention (or exposure) population, prognostic
factors, and outcome metrics are usually included
in these data.
Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 2
III. DATA EXTRACTION TOOLS
i. Excel
Excel is the essential device for managing the
screening and information extraction phases of the
systematic review measure. We can design
customised workbooks and spreadsheets for
systematic review. A further developed way to utilise
Excel for this object is the PIECES approach, planned
by a librarian at Texas A&M.
ii. Covidence
Covidence is software built explicitly for dealing with
each progression of a systematic review project,
including data extraction.
iii. RevMan
RevMan is free software used to oversee Cochrane
surveys. For more data on RevMan, including
clarifying how it could be utilised to extricate and
examine information.
iv. SRDR
SRDR (Systematic Review Data Repository) is a
Web-based tool for extracting and managing data for
systematic review. It is additionally an open and
accessible document of a systematic review and their
information.
v. DistillerSR
DistillerSR is a systematic review management
program. It guides the reviewer in making project-
explicit structures, separating, and examining
information
IV. CONCLUSION
A systematic review article is not conceivable
without a decent literature search. The writing search
has its principles that, for the most part, apply to both
unique and review examines. A detailed review
includes a literature search method guided by keeping
an accurate and straightforward record of the whole
cycle. It is valuable to outline an Excel table where
the choice measures will record references of studies.
This will assist the reviewer with understanding the
methodology, and the outcomes got. If any inquiries
ought to emerge, this proof will make it simple to
discredit and clarify any doubts about the cycle or the
outcomes.
REFERENCES
1. Jackson, Tanya, et al. "Classification of aerosol-
generating procedures: a rapid systematic
review." BMJ open respiratory research 7.1
(2020): e000730.
2. Spasic, Irena, and Goran Nenadic. "Clinical text
data in machine learning: Systematic
review." JMIR medical informatics 8.3 (2020):
e17984.
3. Tamiminia, Haifa, et al. "Google Earth Engine
for geo-big data applications: A meta-analysis
and systematic review." ISPRS Journal of
Photogrammetry and Remote Sensing 164
(2020): 152-170.
4. Büchter, Roland Brian, Alina Weise, and Dawid
Pieper. "Development, testing and use of data
extraction forms in systematic reviews: a review
of methodological guidance." BMC medical
research methodology 20.1 (2020): 1-14.
5. Hu, Ruiqi, Michelle Helena van Velthoven, and
Edward Meinert. "Perspectives of people who
are overweight and obese on using wearable
technology for weight management: systematic
review." JMIR mHealth and uHealth 8.1 (2020):
e12651.
6. Mengist, Wondimagegn, TeshomeSoromessa,
and GudinaLegese. "Method for conducting
systematic literature review and meta-analysis
for environmental science research." MethodsX 7
(2020): 100777.