Skip to main content

Table 2 Characteristics of studies comparing different reviewer extraction methods and reviewer characteristics

From: Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review

Study

Comparator/s

 

Referencea

Studies included

Buscemi 2006 [9]

One reviewer verification by a second

Two reviewers independently

Extraction by one reviewer and verification by an experienced statistician

N = 30 (6 meta-analysis)

Horton 2010 [14]

Minimal data extraction experience (n = 28)

Moderate data extraction experience (n = 19)

Substantial data extraction experience (n = 23)

NA

Minimal systematic review experience (n = 28)

Moderate systematic review experience (n = 31)

Substantial systematic review experience (n = 18)

NA

Minimal overall experienceb (n = 26)

Moderate overall experienceb (n = 24)

Substantial overall experienceb (n = 37)

NA

Tendal 2009 [15]

Experienced methodologists

PhD students

No reference standard (comparison of raw agreement between reviewers)

45 (10 meta-analysis)

  1. adenominator or subtrahend; bbased on time involved in systematic reviews and data extraction and the number of systematic reviews; NA not applicable