Retrieval and collection of accurate and detailed data is an obviously crucial aspect of any umbrella review, overview of reviews, or meta-epidemiologic study. Yet there is limited evidence guiding this key reviewing step, and many reviewers overlook its importance and ensuing need for accurate planning and undertaking. Nonetheless, the available evidence and expert opinion are coherently supporting a set of best practices to ensure the validity, thoroughness, and usability of retrieved data. In particular, data abstraction should be performed by two or more independent reviewers, on formally developed and piloted report forms. The utmost transparency should be sought, for instance, storing reviewing details in online data repositories for scrutiny or subsequent use. Finally, the risk of duplication when conducting an umbrella review or overview of reviews (e.g., considering twice the same trial results because of being reported by two separate systematic reviews) should be minimized, unless this is one of the meta-epidemiologic goals of the reviewing and research synthesis effort.
KeywordsData extraction Data collection Systematic search Risk of bias Precision Sensitivity
- 1.https://www.brainyquote.com/quotes/quotes/m/marcusaure118558.html. Accessed 28 June 2018.
- 2.Guyatt G, Rennie D, Meade MO, Cook DJ. Users’ guide to the medical literature. A manual for evidence-based clinical practice. 2nd ed. New York: McGraw-Hill Professional; 2008.Google Scholar
- 3.Biondi-Zoccai G, editor. Network meta-analysis: evidence synthesis with mixed treatment comparison. Hauppauge: Nova; 2014.Google Scholar
- 4.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. Last accessed 28 June 2018.
- 5.The Joanna Briggs Institute. The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers’ manual. Methodology for JBI umbrella reviews. Adelaide: The University of Adelaide; 2014.Google Scholar
- 7.Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR). Available at: srdr.ahrq.gov. Last accessed 28 June 2018.
- 13.La Torre G, Backhaus I, Mannocci A. Rating for narrative reviews: concept and development of the International Narrative Systematic Assessment tool. Senses Sci. 2015;2:31–5.Google Scholar
- 16.Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. Systematic reviews: CRD’s guidance for undertaking reviews in healthcare. York: University of York; 2009.Google Scholar
- 17.Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S. Finding what works in health care. Standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.Google Scholar
- 18.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Methods guide for effectiveness and comparative effectiveness reviews. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2008.Google Scholar
- 22.Elamin MB, Flynn DN, Bassler D, Briel M, Alonso-Coello P, Karanicolas PJ, Guyatt GH, Malaga G, Furukawa TA, Kunz R, Schünemann H, Murad MH, Barbui C, Cipriani A, Montori VM. Choice of data extraction tools for systematic reviews depends on resources and review complexity. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:506–10.CrossRefPubMedGoogle Scholar
- 24.Doctor evidence. Available at: drevidence.com. Last accessed 28 June 2018.
- 32.Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, Valgimigli M, Romagnoli E, Crea F, Agostoni P. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006;332:202–9.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar
- 33.Nowbar AN, Mielewczik M, Karavassilis M, Dehbi HM, Shun-Shin MJ, Jones S, Howard JP, Cole GD, Francis DP, DAMASCENE Writing Group. Discrepancies in autologous bone marrow stem cell trials and enhancement of ejection fraction (DAMASCENE): weighted regression and meta-analysis. BMJ. 2014;348:g2688.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentralGoogle Scholar