Reporting of methods to prepare, pilot and perform data extraction in systematic reviews: analysis of a sample of 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews

Ref ID 827
First Author R.B. Buchter
Journal BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
Year Of Publishing 2021
URL https://bmcmedresmethodol.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12874-021-01438-z#Sec2
Keywords Reproducibility
Transparency
Non-Cochrane reviews
Problem(s) Methods not described to enable replication
Cochrane reviews more rigorous/higher quality than non-Cochrane reviews
Number of systematic reviews included 152
Summary of Findings From the 152 Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews (indexed in MEDLINE) of health interventions published in English from May and June 2020 some limitations with data extraction methods were observed, with Cochrane reviews performing better than non-Cochrane reviews. (51%); 42 provided information on the type of form used (28%); 24 on piloting (16%); 58 on what data was collected (38%); 133 on the extraction method (88%); 107 on resolving disagreements (70%); 103 on methods to obtain additional data or information (68%); 52 on procedures to avoid data errors (34%); and 47 on methods to deal with multiple study reports (31%). The data extraction form used was published in 10 reviews (7%). Use of software was rarely reported except for statistical analysis software and use of RevMan and GRADEpro GDT in Cochrane reviews.
Did the article find that the problem(s) led to qualitative changes in interpretation of the results? Not Applicable
Are the methods of the article described in enough detail to replicate the study? Yes