Response to 'Increasing value and reducing waste in data extraction for systematic reviews: Tracking data in data extraction forms'

1Citations
Citations of this article
15Readers
Mendeley users who have this article in their library.

This article is free to access.

Abstract

This is a response to a Letter. Data abstraction is a time-consuming and error-prone systematic review task. Shokraneh and Adams categorize available techniques for tracking data during data abstraction into three methods: simple annotation, descriptive addressing, and Cartesian coordinate system. While we agree with the categorization of the techniques, we disagree with the authors' statement that descriptive addressing is a PDF-independent method, i.e., any sort of descriptive addressing must reference a specific version of PDF file and not just any PDF of said report. Different versions of PDFs of the same report might place text and tables on different locations of the same page and/or on different pages. Consequently, it is our opinion that any kind of source location information should be accompanied by the source or linked by an intermediary service such as the Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA).

Cite

CITATION STYLE

APA

Jap, J., Saldanha, I. J., Smith, B. T., Lau, J., & Li, T. (2018, January 25). Response to “Increasing value and reducing waste in data extraction for systematic reviews: Tracking data in data extraction forms.” Systematic Reviews. BioMed Central Ltd. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0677-x

Register to see more suggestions

Mendeley helps you to discover research relevant for your work.

Already have an account?

Save time finding and organizing research with Mendeley

Sign up for free