Copyright © 2021 pubrica. All rights reserved 1

What Data to Extract for Systematic Review

Dr. Nancy Agnes, Head, Technical Operations, Pubrica, sales@pubrica.com

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:sales@pubrica.comhttps://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/