Crafting a Comprehensive Data Extraction Literature Review

Embarking on a literature review journey, especially in the domain of data extraction, can be akin to
navigating a labyrinth of scholarly articles, research papers, and theoretical frameworks. The process
demands meticulous attention, analytical prowess, and a discerning eye for relevant information.

The Challenge of Writing a Literature Review

The first hurdle one encounters when delving into a literature review is the sheer volume of available
material. The breadth of literature on data extraction can be overwhelming, making it arduous to sift
through and identify the most pertinent sources. Moreover, synthesizing diverse perspectives and
findings into a cohesive narrative requires both time and expertise.

Furthermore, ensuring the credibility and reliability of sources adds another layer of complexity.
Distinguishing between high-quality research and spurious claims is crucial for the integrity of the
literature review. This necessitates a critical evaluation of methodologies, data analysis techniques,
and the validity of conclusions drawn by various authors.

Why Seek Assistance?

Given the challenges inherent in writing a literature review, many individuals find it beneficial to
seek professional assistance. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers a comprehensive solution for those
grappling with the complexities of crafting a data extraction literature review.

Why ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔?

1. Expertise: Our team comprises seasoned researchers and writers with expertise in diverse
fields, including data extraction. They possess the requisite knowledge and skills to conduct
thorough literature reviews and deliver insightful analyses.
2. Customization: We understand that every literature review is unique, and thus, we tailor our
services to meet the specific requirements of each client. Whether you need a comprehensive
review or assistance with a particular section, we've got you covered.
3. Timeliness: We recognize the importance of deadlines and strive to deliver high-quality work
within the stipulated timeframe. Our efficient workflow ensures timely completion without
compromising on quality.
4. Quality Assurance: At ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, quality is our utmost priority. Every literature
review undergoes rigorous scrutiny to ensure accuracy, coherence, and adherence to
academic standards.

Conclusion

Writing a literature review on data extraction is undeniably challenging, but with the right support, it
can become a manageable task. ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers a reliable solution for individuals seeking
assistance in navigating the complexities of academic writing. Trust us to transform your literature
review into a compelling narrative that reflects your expertise and insights.
Table 4 provides the sources of all corpora and publications using them. Or a highly-personal column
for how each article relates to your own work. Because trials are referenced by a combination of
numbers and letters, it may be difficult for the review authors to link the trial with other reports of
the same trial (Section 5.2.1 ). Many of the documents downloaded from the US Food and Drug
Administration’s website for older drugs are scanned copies and are not searchable because of
redaction of confidential information (Turner 2013). In other words, it’s less relational which makes
it difficult to create complex search strings to get a subset of items that fit multiple criteria or that use
more complicated search techniques such as Boolean logic or wildcards. You have a close personal
relationship (e.g. parent, spouse, sibling, or domestic partner) with any of the authors. A feature can
be, for example, the number of times that a certain word occurs, or the length of an abstract. Rapid
reviews summarise information from multiple research studies to produce evidence for 'the public,
researchers, policymakers and funders in a systematic, resource-efficient manner'.16 Involvement of
knowledge users is critical.3 Given time constraints, individual knowledge users could be asked only
to feedback on very specific. Marshall IJ, et al.: Automating Biomedical Evidence Synthesis:
RobotReviewer. The second principle implies that systematic reviews should be based on rigorous,
bias-reducing methods. Need a template for the actual literature review chapter. Any changes made
as part of the iterative nature of the scoping review will be documented here. Objectives:. By the end
of the session, the student will be able to: 1. A total of 71 (93%) publications developed classifiers
for randomised controlled trials. All commenters must hold a formal affiliation as per our Policies.
Data should be collected and archived in a form that allows future access and data sharing. But this
marketing-specific project proposal template is specially formulated to help marketing team leads get
buy-in, so they can prove the impact and import of their impending campaign. It has not been vetted
by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. They represent two
different parts of the review process: assembling relevant information and synthesizing it. One of the
articles also makes recommendations on the expertise of the reviewers that should be involved in the
development of the extraction form. Table 7 Data Collection form completed for Maxwell et al.,
1998. Conclusions are drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review.
F1000Research 2023, 10:401 ( ) NOTE: it is important to ensure the information in square brackets
after the title is included in all citations of this article. The views expressed are those of the author(s)
and not necessarily those of the NHS, the NIHR or the Department of Health. 5.9 References Al-
Marzouki S, Evans S, Marshall T, Roberts I. It is usually safest to assume that they were not reported.
JAMA 2004; 291: 974-980. Wager E. Coping with scientific misconduct. With this organisation it
can help to look at the citations your articles list in them, to see if there is one author that appears
over and over. Web systematic review data extraction form template. Summary information about
these should always be collected unless they are not obvious from the context. If necessary, as we
become more familiar with the existing literature our research questions will be refined and modified
accordingly. CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in health care.
We searched these websites for potentially relevant documents and downloaded these. Such methods
are generally better than organizing chronologically or by author. If any software was used to extract
data from figures, specify the software used. Once the data extraction form has been constructed,
it’s recommended that it be pilot tested by several reviewers using a sample group of research
studies. 1,2 This will aid in ensuring the right amount of data is being collected. However, despite
similar and in some cases increased prevalence of disordered eating and EDs among minority ethnic
groups, there appear to be disparities when it comes to ED diagnosis and treatment. Despite recent
developments in machine learning models to automate data extraction in systematic reviews (see
Section 5.5.9 ), data extraction is still largely a manual process. Therefore, most systems described
using, or were assumed to use, text files as input data. Research and Synthesis Table Templates This
Excel workbook includes simple templates for creating research tables and synthesis tables. Little
research has been conducted on extraction errors relating to non-outcome data. This mostly includes
data extraction from reports of randomised controlled trials where intervention and comparators are
usually jointly extracted, and only a very small fraction of the evidence that addresses other
important study types (e.g., diagnostic accuracy studies). Conversely, when there are two or more
detailed journal articles, perhaps relating to different periods of follow-up, then it is likely to be
easier to perform data extraction separately for these articles and collate information from the data
collection forms afterwards. When categorizing the writings in the review, the researcher might
consider the methodology employed; the quality of the findings or conclusions; the document’s
major strengths and weaknesses; any other pivotal information. You will be able to get a quick price
and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways. Writing a Literature Review
Using EndNote Zotero Using Excel to Manage Your Research Aside from pen and paper, many
researchers and scholars use spreadsheets to manage their literature reviews. It is likely that the
particular research context (e.g. see Pham et al., 2021 1 ) will have a large degree of influence on the
performance metrics to be had if they can be determined. They identified more publications
describing data extraction for interventional reviews. Codes related to the parallel interwoven
creation tracks principle. This will prevent you from wasting time with duplicate searches.
RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials. It is
important that everyone involved in data extraction has practice using the form and, if the form was
designed by someone else, receives appropriate training. The description of how the 17 “Key items
of interest” were determined and if there is a plan to put these forth as methodological guidelines or
a reporting checklist would be helpful. The authors found that process evaluation of the intervention
occurred in only some trials and that the implementation was less than ideal in others, including
some of the largest trials. The MetaMap tool was used in nine publications, and the GENIA tagger in
four. The search strategy for our database search was pragmatic for reasons stated in the methods and
may have missed some relevant articles. The data collection form serves several important functions
(Meade and Richardson 1997). Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an
exhaustive list: Examples of 'Non-Financial Competing Interests' Within the past 4 years, you have
held joint grants, published or collaborated with any of the authors of the selected paper. Web
specifically designed for data collection for systematic reviews. When you create a review matrix,
the first few columns should include (1) the authors, title, journal, (2) publication year, and (3)
purpose of the paper. Office for research For help with research grant funding opportunities, ethical
and IP matters. Systematic Reviews: the process, quantitative, qualitative and mixed methods.
A single source rarely provides complete information about a study; on the other hand, multiple
sources may contain conflicting information about the same study (Mayo-Wilson et al 2017a, Mayo-
Wilson et al 2017b, Mayo-Wilson et al 2018). Many university guides on the subject recommend
creating a synthesis matrix for keeping track of sources, ideas, and quotations. BMC Med Res
Methodol. 2017;17:152. Gotzsche PC, Hrobjartsson A, Maric K, Tendal B. It is not clear, however,
how long the funding will support this effort or how long the authors will remain engaged in
advancing this project. Turn recording back on. See more. Rapid reviews methods series: guidance
on rapid qualitative evidence Setting the review question and topic refinement. I’ve already started
making your template my own by adding additional columns that are important for my research
topic. For example, a poorly developed extraction form may lead to extensive revisions during the
review process and may require reviewers to go back to the original sources or repeat extraction on
some included studies. If necessary, as we become more familiar with the existing literature our
research questions will be refined and modified accordingly. We updated existing figures and tables
with the exception of Table 1(pre-processing techniques), because reliance on pre-processing has
decreased in recent years. This article suggested a technique for obtaining site page script data
founded on multiplefunction synthesis, according to the above features. Web gifs the data can be
split into two types: Excel is the most basic tool for the management of the screening and data
extraction stages of the systematic. HTA documents were retrieved in February 2019 and database
searches conducted in December 2019. Brassey J, Price C, Edwards J, et al.: Developing a fully
automated evidence synthesis tool for identifying, assessing and collating the evidence. Each step of
the SLR process has its own challenges. Base-review: In terms of transparency, 81% of the
publications provided a clear description of their algorithm, 94% described the characteristics of
their datasets, but only 9% mentioned hardware specifications or feasibility of using their algorithm
on large real-world datasets such as PubMed. Incorporate flexibility to allow for variation in how
data are reported. This would imply that data extraction is conducted by two reviewers
independently, but since this method was not stated, it was classified as “method not mentioned”.
The team seeks to align the review question and the requirements of the knowledge user with
available time and resources. This simpler version of our project proposal template includes fields for
an executive summary, multiple goals, a task roadmap, a schedule, a budget, and necessary resources.
Jones CW, Keil LG, Holland WC, Caughey MC, Platts-Mills TF. You simply create a few columns
and can get started using your literature tracking system in a matter of minutes. I have watched your
lecture video on writing a research proposal. Systematic Review. NU517 Clinical Scholarship for
Evidence Based Practice Cornelia C. Zhang et al. 12 included 49 references on automation of data
extraction fields such as diseases, outcomes, or metadata. One of the questions which often comes up
when discussing the SLR process is how do I manage my references in the most efficient way during
the process of going from my search results, to my final list of articles. It is important that everyone
involved in data extraction has practice using the form and, if the form was designed by someone
else, receives appropriate training. For example, a hierarchy of preferred measures might be created,
or plans articulated to select the result with the median effect size, or to average across all eligible
results for a particular outcome domain (see also Chapter 9, Section 9.3.3 ). Any additional decisions
or changes to this framework made once the data are collected should be reported in the review as
changes to the protocol. Section 5.6 describes the numbers that will be required to perform meta-
analysis, if appropriate. Computational or system architecture implications 5. It remains the most
frequently used approaches to automation. In the second stage, publications were excluded based on
their.
For instance, we would consider the inclusion of content experts in the development of the
extraction forms to be important to enhance clinical relevance and applicability. Explainable AI in
Healthcare and Medicine: Building a Culture of Transparency and Accountability. Dhrangadhariya
A, Muller H: Not so weak PICO: leveraging weak supervision for participants, interventions, and
outcomes recognition for systematic review automation. JAMIA Open. 2023; 6 (1): ooac107.
Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews 2014; 10: MR000035. HTA agencies may consider
describing in more detail their published methods on data extraction procedures to increase
transparency. Marshall IJ, et al.: Automating Biomedical Evidence Synthesis: RobotReviewer. This is
an open access peer review report distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution
License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the
original work is properly cited. We focus on presenting the core pattern matching algorithm and the
overall architecture, which allows programming of custom-made solutions for hard extraction tasks.
Keep track of the decisions the team makes and the reasoning behind them. Continue reading READ
ALL Data extraction in a systematic review is a hard and time-consuming task. Publication Type
Score, or range between worst to best class 43 Average accuracy between annotators Range: 0.62 to
0.70 48 Agreement rate 80% 65 Cohen’s Kappa 0.84 overall, down to 0.59 for worst class 104
Cohen’s Kappa Range: 0.41 to 0.71 75 Inter-annotation recall Range: 0.38 to 0.86 55 Cohen’s Kappa
between experts Range: 0.5 to 0.59 55 Macro-averaged worker vs. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate
Stage 2 Conducting a review Phase 3 Identification of research Phase 4 Selection of studies Phase 5
Study quality assessment Phase 6 Data extraction and monitoring progress Phase 7 Data synthesis R.
Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed
by BMJ. Review Matrix One way to organize your literature is with a review matrix. Some machine-
learning architectures need to convert text into features before performing classification. Do you
have any recommendations for adding Key quotes from a reference. A third reviewer (SM) may be
consulted for arbitration of any conflicting decisions. This is an open access article distributed under
the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution,
and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited. High prevalence but
low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. We
classified this article as not having any original data extraction approach because it does not create
any structured outputs specific to P, IC, or O. Demner-Fushman D, et al.: Finding medication doses
in the liteature. OR multi organisational OR multi- company OR multi-organisation OR multi-. Here
at UNC, we use a systematic review software called Covidence. The abstract and conclusions were
updated to reflect changes and new research trends such as increased availability of datasets, source
code, more papers describing relation extraction and summarisation. Web to use the data extraction
template in covidence, select the studies for extraction from the review summary. Project brief
template Whether you need a document to submit a project for approval or just like the clarity of
starting projects with a concise summary, a project brief covers your bases. Close READ LESS CITE
CITE HOW TO CITE THIS REPORT Amezcua-Prieto C. The relative strengths and weaknesses of
each type of source are discussed in Section 5.2.2. For guidance on searching for and selecting
reports of studies, refer to Chapter 4. Can it be that there is a technical problem or does it take some
time to send it. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Citation bias The citation or non-citation of research
finding, depending on the nature and direction of the results R.
I am interested in the literature review excel template and the book write smarter not harder. The
happy thoughts column is for notes, such as how findings relate to her own work, while the unhappy
thoughts column is for times when she disagrees with an author, among other uses. Little design up
front Separate product discovery and product creation. The initial testing focuses on the clarity and
completeness of questions. The age of these publications means that the latest static or contextual
embedding-based and neural methods are not included. Web data extraction and risk of bias
assessment are critical steps in any systematic review. Those available at the time of writing include
tools called Plot Digitizer, WebPlotDigitizer, Engauge, Dexter, ycasd, GetData Graph Digitizer.
Simulations based on a huge amount of information demonstrates that the method is standardized
and highly accurate for extracting text information from solitary text, multiple-text webpages a. The
maximum and minimum number of items that were positively rated were 16 and 1, respectively, with
a median of 10 (see Table A1 in Underlying data 127 ). Protocol for a scoping review to identify
research reporting on eating Background. It is not all singing and dancing, and I’m sure there are lots
of clever things I’m missing out on. Software to help you create coded data extraction forms from
templates include: Covidence, DistillerSR (needs subscription), EPPI Reviewer (subscription, free
trial), or AHRQ's SRDR tool (free) which is web-based and has a training environment, tutorials,
and example templates of systematic review data extraction forms. Web data extraction is central to
any systematic review, allowing reviewers to collate data from studies to enable them to answer a.
Derek, The products you and the team members have put together continue to provide exemplary
help as I finish the journey toward completing my dissertation. Version 2: Advanced, but Complex,
Set-Up Option If you want to take your basic Excel spreadsheet up a notch, you can do so in several
ways. Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace B: RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically
assessing bias in clinical trials. Competing interests AB is co-convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative
and Implementation Methods Group. A variation on the general project management spreadsheet,
this one has simplified fields for timelines with day totals, cost estimates, and customizable
dropdowns for assigning tasks to relevant contractors and personnel. Proponents of the Excel
approach are quick to tout the many benefits. A logging system is needed to make sure all relevant
studies. Therefore, the most current review version, along with the number of abstracts screened and
included after the publication of this review iteration, is available on our website. OR cross
organisation OR cross organization OR cross organizational OR. In accordance with other reviews
they describe screening as the most frequently automated step, while automated data extraction tools
are lacking due to the complexity of the task. Publications in the neural and deep-learning domain
described approaches such as early stopping, dropout, L2-regularisation, or weight decay. 59, 96, 106
Some publications did not specifically discuss overfitting in the text, but their open-source code
indicated that the latter techniques were used. 55, 75 3.4.5.4 Is the process of splitting training from
validation data described. A manual or guide may help your team establish standards. For example,
Norman, Leeflang and Neveol 23 performed data extraction for diagnostic test accuracy reviews, but
focused on extracting the results and data for statistical analyses. They identified four studies that
looked at the frequency of data extraction errors in systematic reviews. Other forms are built into
systematic review manuscript development software (e.g., Covidence, RevMan), although many
scholars prefer to simply use Excel to collect data. This makes their development, pilot testing and
use a crucial part of the systematic reviews process. We added a data extraction item for the type of
information which a publication mines (e.g. P, IC, O) into the section of primary items of interest,
and we moved the type of input and output format from primary to secondary items of interest.
Writing a Literature Review Getting Started Defining the Scope Finding the Literature Citation
Management Tools Using excel to manage your research. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Multiple
(duplicate) publication bias The multiple or singular publication of research finding, depending on the
nature and direction of the results R. Griffith University Research Methods Advisors For advanced
statistical advice. One of the questions which often comes up when discussing the SLR process is
how do I manage my references in the most efficient way during the process of going from my
search results, to my final list of articles. If the settings of studies may influence intervention effects
or applicability, then information on these should be collected. Cite this Scribbr article If you want to
cite this source, you can copy and paste the citation or click the “Cite this Scribbr article” button to
automatically add the citation to our free Citation Generator. Doing the conceptual synthesis Excel
dump as you do your reading allows you to create a nice map of the literature. Ethics and
dissemination No ethical approval is required for this study. Your job, when you assemble this
information, is to develop a snapshot of what the research shows about the topic of your research
question and assess its value (both for the purpose of your work and for general knowledge in the
field). It is often written as part of a thesis, dissertation, or research paper, in order to situate your
work in relation to existing knowledge. HTA documents were retrieved in February 2019 and
database searches conducted in December 2019. PLoS Medicine 2009; 6. Safer DJ. Design and
reporting modifications in industry-sponsored comparative psychopharmacology trials. Compiling
and testing code from every publication is outside the scope of this review. MAJOR MODELS or
MAJOR THEORIES: When there are multiple models or prominent theories, it is a good idea to
outline the theories or models that are applied the most in your articles. In assessing whether
interventions were implemented as planned, review authors should bear in mind that some
interventions are standardized (with no deviations permitted in the intervention protocol), whereas
others explicitly allow a degree of tailoring (Zwarenstein et al 2008). Compared to CSRs, regulatory
reviews contain less information about trial design, execution, and results. Fig. 3 illustrates. This
re?ects that, while the idea of integrating. In the future, developers of learning resources should
consider providing more information and guidance on this important part of the systematic review
process. The ClinicalTrials.gov results database: update and key issues. Then, you can read PDFs and
save notes and memos directly in the program. There is a need for review authors to work with
experts in informatics to refine these tools and evaluate them rigorously. Figure 7 shows that 43 out
of 53 publications in the base-review (81%) provided descriptions of their data extraction algorithm.
Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the authors and not necessarily those of the NIHR or
the Department of Health and Social Care. In our case, these are shareable spreadsheets that can be
customized and inserted into processes across various project types. To explain how to use microsoft
excel to create transparent and complete reports for systematic reviews. Not applicable. Consent for
publication Competing interests. Data Extraction At least two reviewers should independently extract
data to reduce bias and errors. Keywords: Data extraction; Evidence synthesis; Systematic review
methods. Inclusion and exclusion criteria are further detailed below (see table 2 ). Develop the
Review’sProtocol 5.1 PLANNING 1. Identify the RelevantLiterature 2.
Little design up front Separate product discovery and product creation. Sampling methods Simple
random sampling Stratified sampling Cluster sampling Likert scales Reproducibility Statistics Null
hypothesis Statistical power Probability distribution Effect size Poisson distribution Research bias
Optimism bias Cognitive bias Implicit bias Hawthorne effect Anchoring bias Explicit bias A
literature review is a survey of scholarly sources (such as books, journal articles, and theses) related
to a specific topic or research question. Eating disorders Health Services Accessibility Systematic
Review This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons
Attribution 4.0 Unported (CC BY 4.0) license, which permits others to copy, redistribute, remix,
transform and build upon this work for any purpose, provided the original work is properly cited, a
link to the licence is given, and indication of whether changes were made. See:. Statistics from
Altmetric.com Request permissions. This follow-up task will be a major point of interest for many
who will follow updates to this paper. Continue reading READ ALL Data extraction in a systematic
review is a hard and time-consuming task. Academic refers to the classic academic sources such as
textbooks and journal articles, while practitioner refers to publications such as industry reports,
company reports, industry magazines, etc. Assessment of the quality of reporting 4.2 We only
assessed full quality of reporting in the base-review, and assessed selected items during the review
update. You can easily incorporate information from the library's databases using these tools. Little
research has been conducted on extraction errors relating to non-outcome data. That's where these
come in. 10. Project budget allocation template For a more detailed look at the likely costs of
executing a project, you'll need a project budget allocation template. Searching and update schedules
have been clearly defined, shown in Figure 1. Multiple outcomes and analyses in clinical trials create
challenges for interpretation and research synthesis. For example Ref. 56 used cross-validation to
train and evaluate their model, and then used an additional corpus after the cross-validation process.
Competing interests AB is co-convenor of the Cochrane Qualitative and Implementation Methods
Group. World-Wide Web OR project OR development) AND (method OR process OR. Need a
column to track the location of a study or a specific intervention. HTA documents were retrieved in
February 2019 and database searches conducted in December 2019. Not applicable Are the
conclusions drawn adequately supported by the results presented in the review. You have all the
analysis and quotes you’ve saved in a panel at the left and can just click to insert what you need.
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide. Calculation of percentages, export of
extracted text, and creation of figures was also automated. 2.5.4 Accessibility of data All data and
code are free to access. Systematic Reviews. 2021; 10 (1). Publisher Full Text Competing Interests:
No competing interests were disclosed. Base-review: Reproducibility was high throughout, with
information about sources of training and evaluation data reported in 94% of all publications and
pre-processing described in 89%. Review authors also should consider the software they will use for
analysis and for publishing the review (e.g. RevMan). Step 4. Develop and pilot-test data collection
forms, ensuring that they provide data in the right format and structure for subsequent analysis. For
instance, we would consider the inclusion of content experts in the development of the extraction
forms to be important to enhance clinical relevance and applicability. Tagged with literature review,
research, writing. The JBI manual makes this optional but requires the systematic reviewers to report
whether authors of included studies are contacted in the review protocol. We added a data extraction
item for the type of information which a publication mines (e.g. P, IC, O) into the section of primary
items of interest, and we moved the type of input and output format from primary to secondary items
of interest. I confirm that I have read this submission and believe that I have an appropriate level of
expertise to confirm that it is of an acceptable scientific standard. Although forms can be similar
across different reviews, they should be adapted and modified to fit your specific review.