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