Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Review
. 2017 Nov 28;17(1):152.
doi: 10.1186/s12874-017-0431-4.

Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review

Tim Mathes  1 , Pauline Klaßen  2 , Dawid Pieper  2
Affiliations
Review

Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review

Tim Mathes et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Our objective was to assess the frequency of data extraction errors and its potential impact on results in systematic reviews. Furthermore, we evaluated the effect of different extraction methods, reviewer characteristics and reviewer training on error rates and results.

Methods: We performed a systematic review of methodological literature in PubMed, Cochrane methodological registry, and by manual searches (12/2016). Studies were selected by two reviewers independently. Data were extracted in standardized tables by one reviewer and verified by a second.

Results: The analysis included six studies; four studies on extraction error frequency, one study comparing different reviewer extraction methods and two studies comparing different reviewer characteristics. We did not find a study on reviewer training. There was a high rate of extraction errors (up to 50%). Errors often had an influence on effect estimates. Different data extraction methods and reviewer characteristics had moderate effect on extraction error rates and effect estimates.

Conclusion: The evidence base for established standards of data extraction seems weak despite the high prevalence of extraction errors. More comparative studies are needed to get deeper insights into the influence of different extraction methods.

Keywords: Accuracy; Data extraction; Errors; Reviewers; Systematic reviews.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable. This work contains no human data.

Consent for publication

All authors reviewed the final manuscript and consented for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Figures

Fig. 1
Fig. 1
Flow-diagram of study selection
See this image and copyright information in PMC

Similar articles

See all similar articles

Cited by

See all "Cited by" articles

References

    1. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
    1. Felson DT. Bias in meta-analytic research. J Clin Epidemiol. 1992;45(8):885–892. doi: 10.1016/0895-4356(92)90072-U. - DOI - PubMed
    1. Centre for reviews dissemination. CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. York Publishing Services Ltd. 2009;32:Jg.
    1. Joanna Briggs Institute. Reviewers’ manual: 2011 edition. Adelaide: JBI; 2014.
    1. Tricco AC, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Fergusson D, Cogo E, Horsley T, Moher D. Few systematic reviews exist documenting the extent of bias: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(5):422–434. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.017. - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources