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
. 2020 Mar 25:9:210.
doi: 10.12688/f1000research.22781.2. eCollection 2020.

Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: A living review protocol

Lena Schmidt  1 , Babatunde K Olorisade  1 , Luke A McGuinness  1 , James Thomas  2 , Julian P T Higgins  1
Affiliations

Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: A living review protocol

Lena Schmidt et al. F1000Res. .

Abstract

Background: Researchers in evidence-based medicine cannot keep up with the amounts of both old and newly published primary research articles. Support for the early stages of the systematic review process - searching and screening studies for eligibility - is necessary because it is currently impossible to search for relevant research with precision. Better automated data extraction may not only facilitate the stage of review traditionally labelled 'data extraction', but also change earlier phases of the review process by making it possible to identify relevant research. Exponential improvements in computational processing speed and data storage are fostering the development of data mining models and algorithms. This, in combination with quicker pathways to publication, led to a large landscape of tools and methods for data mining and extraction. Objective: To review published methods and tools for data extraction to (semi)automate the systematic reviewing process. Methods: We propose to conduct a living review. With this methodology we aim to do constant evidence surveillance, bi-monthly search updates, as well as review updates every 6 months if new evidence permits it. In a cross-sectional analysis we will extract methodological characteristics and assess the quality of reporting in our included papers. Conclusions: We aim to increase transparency in the reporting and assessment of automation technologies to the benefit of data scientists, systematic reviewers and funders of health research. This living review will help to reduce duplicate efforts by data scientists who develop data mining methods. It will also serve to inform systematic reviewers about possibilities to support their data extraction.

Keywords: Data Extraction; Natural Language Processing; Reproducibility; Systematic reviews; Text mining.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests were disclosed.

Figures

Figure 1.
Figure 1.. Study registrations on ClinicalTrials.gov show an increasing trend.
Figure 2.
Figure 2.. Continuous updating of the living review.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, et al. : Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(2):e012545. 10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, et al. : Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):74. 10.1186/2046-4053-3-74 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. O'Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, et al. : Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4:5. 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD: Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4:78. 10.1186/s13643-015-0066-7 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Marshall I, Kuiper J, Wallace B: Robotreviewer on github. 2020; Last accessed 14 Jan 2020. Reference Source

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources