High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews

Jones, Ashley P; Remmington, Tracey; Williamson, Paula; Ashby, Deborah; Smyth, Rosalind L

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.11.024

Cited by 91 publications

(74 citation statements)

References 1 publication

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The lack of standards for data extraction contrasts with the efforts that have been made to uniformly and complete reporting of randomized control trials using the Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses statement [1]. The data extraction stage of the systematic review process is understudied, yet it is one of the most complex and timeconsuming stages of the systematic review process and crucial to the validity of the results and the resource expenditure for the review.Previously published works have shown that discrepancies occur with respect to extraction of sample sizes, design, start and end dates, selection criteria, and secondary outcomes [2], and found that the rate of inaccuracies was ''unacceptable'' [3]. Errors were found in 20 of 34 published systematic reviews when data extraction was repeated by an experienced statistician [3].…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Systematic review data extraction: cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy

Horton

Vandermeer

Hartling

et al. 2010

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Errors were found in 20 of 34 published systematic reviews when data extraction was repeated by an experienced statistician [3]. Subsequent analysis showed that these errors did not affect the review conclusions [3]. The results of these studies have led to calls to increase the rigor of the data extraction process to reduce errors.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Systematic review data extraction: cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy

Horton

Vandermeer

Hartling

et al. 2010

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Some mention estimation and approximation but without any further details. Incorrect data extraction could lead to false calculations and conclusions [11].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Survey of Cochrane protocols found methods for data extraction from figures not mentioned or unclear

Vučić

Kadić

Puljak

2015

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…One person or two dependent persons might make some mistakes during data extracting, which is the reason why well conducting SRs/metaanslyses need two independent persons to select studies and abstract data. Even though, high prevalence of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews (Jones et al, 2005). We compared the search strategy, study selection, data abstraction of three SRs/meta-anslyses about the relationships between green tea and GC risk (Zhou et al, 2008;Myung et al, 2009;Kang et al, 2010).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews about Gastric Cancer Risk and Protective Factors

Ying²,

Sun³

et al. 2012

Asian Pacific Journal of Cancer Prevention

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background and Objective: A comprehensive overall review of gastric cancer (GC) risk and protective factors is a high priority, so we conducted the present study. Methods: Systematic searches in common medical electronic databases along with reference tracking were conducted to include all kinds of systematic reviews (SRs) about GC risk and protective factors. Two authors independently selected studies, extracted data, and evaluated the methodological qualities and the quality of evidence using R-AMSTAR and GRADE approaches. Results: Betacarotene below 20 mg/day, fruit, vegetables, non-fermented soy-foods, whole-grain, and dairy product were GC protective factors, while beta-carotene 20 mg/day or above, pickled vegetables, fermented soy-foods, processed meat 30g/d or above, or salty foods, exposure to alcohol or smoking, occupational exposure to Pb, overweight and obesity, helicobacter pylori infection were GC risk factors. So we suggested screening and treating H. pylori infection, limiting the amount of food containing risk factors (processed meat consumption, beta-carotene, pickled vegetables, fermented soy-foods, salty foods, alcohol), stopping smoking, avoiding excessive weight gain, avoidance of Pb, and increasing the quantity of food containing protective components (fresh fruit and vegetables, non-fermented soy-foods, whole-grain, dairy products). Conclusions: The conclusions and recommendations of our study were limited by including SRs with poor methodological bases and low quality of evidence, so that more research applying checklists about assessing the methodological qualities and reporting are needed for the future.

show abstract

High prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews

Cited by 91 publications

References 1 publication

Systematic review data extraction: cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy

Systematic review data extraction: cross-sectional study showed that experience did not increase accuracy

Survey of Cochrane protocols found methods for data extraction from figures not mentioned or unclear

Overview of Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews about Gastric Cancer Risk and Protective Factors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About