- Framework of problems / Rigourous
- Data extraction errors and double counting
- A case study of binary outcome data extraction across three systematic reviews of hip arthroplasty: errors and differences of selection
| Ref ID | 256 |
| First Author | C. Carroll |
| Journal | BMC RESEARCH NOTES |
| Year Of Publishing | 2013 |
| URL | https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24344873/ |
| Keywords |
• Surgery • Inference • Error • Single reviewer |
| Problem(s) |
• Single reviewer / lack of double checking • Data extraction errors and double counting |
| Number of systematic reviews included | 3 |
| Summary of Findings | Assessment of differences in the binary event data extracted and analysed by three systematic reviews of total hip arthroplasty and hemiarthroplasty found differences in selection accounted for between 8% and 42% of the data differences between reviews. Errors in data extraction accounted for between 8% and 17% of the differences. These differences did lead to small differences in meta-analysed relative risks between the two treatments in the three reviews, but none was significant. |
| Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? | No |
| Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? | Yes |