Title: Simplifying Literature Reviews: Data Extraction Tools Made Easy

Embarking on a literature review journey can be both exhilarating and daunting. As researchers,
academics, or students, we understand the paramount importance of meticulously reviewing existing
literature to inform our work. However, the process of scouring through numerous sources,
extracting relevant data, and synthesizing findings can quickly become overwhelming. Fear not, for
we have the solution – data extraction tools tailored to streamline your literature review process.

Navigating the vast sea of academic literature demands precision and efficiency. Gone are the days
of manual extraction and endless note-taking. With the advent of data extraction tools, researchers
now have access to a treasure trove of resources that simplify the arduous task of literature review.

These tools are designed to expedite the process while ensuring accuracy and comprehensiveness. By
employing advanced algorithms and customizable parameters, they enable users to swiftly extract
pertinent information from a plethora of sources. From abstracts to key findings, these tools
empower researchers to curate a comprehensive database of relevant literature effortlessly.

Furthermore, data extraction tools offer invaluable features such as citation management, keyword
highlighting, and categorization, allowing users to organize and analyze data with unparalleled
efficiency. Whether you're conducting a systematic review, meta-analysis, or simply exploring a
specific topic, these tools serve as indispensable allies in your research journey.

However, despite the myriad benefits of data extraction tools, selecting the right one can pose a
significant challenge. With countless options available in the market, each boasting unique features
and functionalities, finding the perfect fit for your needs can be a daunting task.

This is where ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ comes to the rescue. With years of experience in the academic
writing industry, ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ offers a curated selection of data extraction tools tailored to
streamline your literature review process. Our platform provides comprehensive reviews,
comparisons, and recommendations, ensuring that you make an informed decision.

By choosing ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔, you gain access to a wealth of resources and expertise,

empowering you to conquer the intricacies of literature review with confidence. Say goodbye to
endless hours of manual extraction and tedious note-taking – revolutionize your research process
with ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ today.

In conclusion, while the task of writing a literature review may seem daunting, data extraction tools
offer a beacon of hope for researchers seeking to navigate the vast landscape of academic literature.
With the right tools at your disposal, literature reviews need not be a source of dread but rather a
journey of discovery and enlightenment. So why wait? Unlock the power of data extraction tools
with ⇒ StudyHub.vip ⇔ and embark on your research journey with confidence.
Review authors should, therefore, include the philosophical stance in their literature summary for the
particular article. Very few documents made comprehensive recommendations. Tip 3: write
conceptual contribution of each reviewed article While reading and evaluating review papers, we
have observed that many review authors only provide core results of the article included in a review
and do not explain the conceptual contribution offered by the included article. Li G, Abbade LPF,
Nwosu I, Jin Y, Leenus A, Maaz M, Wang M, Bhatt M, Zielinski L, Sanger N, Bantoto B, Luo C,
Shams I, Shahid H, Chang Y, Sun G, Mbuagbaw L, Samaan Z, Levine MAH, Adachi JD, Thabane L.
Ideally, data extraction algorithms should be evaluated on different datasets in order to detect over-
fitting, to test how the systems react to data from different domains and different annotators, and to
enable the comparison of systems in a reliable way. Here at UNC, we use a systematic review
software called Covidence. It serves as the visual web scraper that makes use of a point and click
interface to scrape data. SQL relational databases are the best examples of structured data sets. For
example within the new GPT-4 technical report, OpenAI describe increased performance,
predictability, and closer adherence to the expected behaviour of their model, 123 and some other
(open-source) LLMs shown in Figure 13 may have similar potential. Figure 13. The evolutionary tree
of language models, reproduced from Yang et al. 122 as published in their paper 'Harnessing the
Power of LLMs in Practice: A Survey on ChatGPT and Beyond'. Some publications also provided
links to notebooks on Google Colab, which is a cloud-based platform to develop and execute code
online. Hence, to simplify the Data Extraction process, Data Extraction Tools were developed. Basic
study parameters (diagnosis criteria, research duration, and total sample size), interventions (drugs,
dosages, formulae, and dosage form), and. When uncertainties remain after considering these and
other factors, it may be necessary to correspond with the study authors or sponsors for confirmation.
5.2.2 Determining which sources might be most useful A comprehensive search to identify all
eligible studies from all possible sources is resource-intensive but necessary for a high-quality
systematic review (see Chapter 4 ). Adverse events: The more you search, the more you find. For
instance, we would consider the inclusion of content experts in the development of the extraction
forms to be important to enhance clinical relevance and applicability. Schmidt L, Sinyor M, Webb
RT, et al.: A narrative review of recent tools and innovations toward automating living systematic
reviews and evidence syntheses. Conclusions are drawn adequately supported by the results
presented in the review. Olorisade 3,5,6, James Thomas 4, Julian P. T. Higgins 3 Lena Schmidt 1-3,
Ailbhe N. However, there are templates and guidance available to help in the creation of your forms.
This is true for most publications published before 2010, and about 50% of the literature published in
more recent years. Results Out of a total of 1190 unique citations that met our search criteria, we
found 26 published reports describing automatic extraction of at least one of more than 52 potential
data elements used in systematic reviews. In the future, developers of learning resources should
consider providing more information and guidance on this important part of the systematic review
process. Second, we seek to highlight the added value of the methods and tools from the perspective
of systematic reviewers who wish to use (semi) automation for data extraction, i.e., what is the extent
of automation. NICTA: Eveleigh NSW; 2013. 111. Lehman E, DeYoung J, Barzilay R, et al.:
Inferring which medical treatments work from reports of clinical trials. One of the major limitations
to be noted is the unfortunate issue of the lack of specific data in abstracts about interventions and
comparators. These documents are summaries of CSRs and related documents, prepared by agency
staff as part of the process of approving the products for marketing, after reanalysing the original trial
data. Information sources and searches For collecting the initial set of articles for our review, we
developed search strategies with the help of the Cochrane Heart Group US Satellite, which includes
systematic reviewers and a medical librarian. Review authors should seek consistent quantities where
possible, and decide whether it is more relevant to summarize characteristics for the study as a whole
or by intervention group. Guidance for developers of health research reporting guidelines. PLoS
Med. 2010;7:e1000217. Kirkham JJ, Dwan KM, Altman DG, Gamble C, Dodd S, Smyth R, et al.
Outwit Hub (free) Outwit Hub is the free data extraction software that helps in exploring the in-depth
details of the Web.
Today's market offers a variety of Cloud-Based solutions. Not applicable Are the conclusions drawn
adequately supported by the results presented in the review. One author extracted the
recommendations and a second author checked them for accuracy. More rarely, a disagreement may
require arbitration by another person. However, all these studies only highlighted sentences
containing the data elements relevant to interpretation. First, we want to examine the methods and
tools from the data science perspective, seeking to reduce duplicate efforts, summarise current
knowledge, and encourage comparability of published methods. News Production Workflows in
Data- driven, Algorithmic Journalism: A Systema. Inferring appropriate eligibility criteria in clinical
trial protocols without labeled data, Proceedings of the ACM sixth international workshop on Data
and text mining in biomedical informatics. 2012. ACM. Blei DM, Ng AY, Jordan MI. The PRISMA
statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care
interventions: explanation and elaboration. The Sixth Midwest Computational Linguistics
Colloquium (MCLC 2009). 2009. Summerscales R, Argamon S, Bai S, Huperff J, Schwartzff A. This
has greatly benefited research scholars, students, and professionals across the globe. Octoparse (free)
If you are looking for an automatic data extraction tool, then Octoparse is the apt choice for you. The
most significant benefit of data extraction tools is that they remove the manual component from the
equation, saving both time and money. Because of the clarity and completeness of information
provided in CSRs, data extraction from CSRs may be clearer and conducted more confidently than
from journal articles or other short reports. Here at UNC, we use a systematic review software called
Covidence. Clinical study reports (CSRs) contain unabridged and comprehensive descriptions of the
clinical problem, design, conduct and results of clinical trials, following a structure and content
guidance prescribed by the International Conference on Harmonisation (ICH 1995). Consequently,
the findings of a systematic review depend critically on decisions relating to which data from these
studies are presented and analysed. Synthesis of the primary analysis In sum, we analysed
recommendations from 25 sources in our primary analysis. Where plentiful reviews already exist, a
team may decide to conduct a review of reviews 5 by including multiple QES within a mega-
synthesis 28 29 ( table 2, item R6). A review team should identify where such shared mechanisms
might operate. 28 An rQES team must also decide whether to use frameworks or models to focus the
review. Results of the pilot testing of the form should prompt discussion among review authors and
extractors of ambiguous questions or responses to establish consistency. Heshmat MD; PhD
candidate Stage 1 Planning the review Phase 0 Identification of the need for a review Phase 1
Preparation of a proposal for a review Phase 2 Development of a review protocol R. Therefore,
while developing literature summary tables, think twice before using the predeveloped themes. This
image is reproduced under the terms of a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International license
(CC-BY 4.0) from Schmidt et al. 15 The decision for full review updates is made every six months
based on the number of new publications added to the review. Where API, application programming
interface; BERT, bidirectional encoder representations from Transformers; CNN, convolutional
neural network; CRF, conditional random fields; LSTM, long short-term memory; PICO, population,
intervention, comparison, outcome; RNN, recurrent neural networks; SVM, support vector machines.
This makes their development, pilot testing and use a crucial part of the systematic reviews process.
The methods are sufficiently described to be replicated, but further details of analysis to determine
the items of interest would be helpful to link into the results. However, the data extraction literature
on full text is still sparse and extraction from abstracts may be of limited value to reviewers in
practice because it carries the risk of missing information. They used 346 sentences from the clinical
guideline document and obtained an F-score of 98 % for classifying sentences. Saldanha IJ, Li TJ,
Yang C, Owczarzak J, Williamson PR, Dickersin K.
Guideline conflict of interest management and methodology heavily impacts on the strength of
recommendations: comparison between two iterations of the American College of Chest Physicians
Antithrombotic Guidelines. Access to IPD has the advantage of allowing review authors to
reanalyse the data flexibly, in accordance with the preferred analysis methods outlined in the
protocol, and can reduce the variation in analysis methods across studies included in the review.
Thus, discussion among the authors is a sensible first step. After title and abstract screening, 15
potentially relevant full texts remained. It supports all types of operating systems. Without writing
any code, you can extract data from almost any websites with the help of this solution. The process
of updating started as described in the protocol 15 and is shown in Figure 1. The features were based
on lexical, syntactic, structural, and sequential information in the data. You will have descriptive (e.g.
type of study, study characteristics) and analytical data (e.g. outcomes). Looking at other systematic
reviews can give you an idea of the types of data to extract. Close READ LESS CITE CITE HOW
TO CITE THIS REPORT McFarlane E. Decisions on relevance are challenging—precautions for
swine influenza may inform precautions for bird influenza. 28 A smoking ban may operate similarly
to seat belt legislation, etc. This is not surprising, because systematic reviews of interventions are the
most common type of systematic review, and they are usually focusing on evidence from RCTs. The
error rate for outcome data ranged from 8 to 63%. This process can be done by hand or by using a
computer program.? Click an item below to see how it applies to Step 7: Extract Data from Included
Studies. It helps businesses extract data from over 150 different sources with its built-in connectors
and automated schema management features. Heshmat MD; PhD candidate Stage 2 Conducting a
review Phase 3 Identification of research Phase 4 Selection of studies Phase 5 Study quality
assessment Phase 6 Data extraction and monitoring progress Phase 7 Data synthesis R.
Recommendations for non-interventional reviews Additional file 6. Lastly, authors of reporting
guidelines for systematic reviews of various types can use our results to consider elements worth
including. Proceedings of the NAACL HLT 2010 Second Louhi Workshop on Text and Data Mining
of Health Documents; 2010: Association for Computational Linguistics. Flow diagrams such as those
modified from the PRISMA statement can be particularly helpful when collating and documenting
information from multiple reports (Mayo-Wilson et al 2018). 5.5.5 Reliability and reaching consensus
When more than one author extracts data from the same reports, there is potential for disagreement.
The following example outlines what could be included in a data extraction form for a review of
effectiveness studies adapted from the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination 2: General
Information Date of extraction Bibliographic information of the study Name of reviewer Specific
Information Reverification of study eligibility Population characteristics and setting Methodological
quality of the study Interventions Coding format and instructions for coders 1. For example Ref. 56
used cross-validation to train and evaluate their model, and then used an additional corpus after the
cross-validation process. The (semi) automation of data extraction in systematic reviews is an
advantage for researchers and ultimately for evidence-based clinical practice. Guarantor: RBB.
Corresponding author Correspondence to Roland Brian Buchter. For rule-based methods we looked
for a description of how rules were derived, and for a list of full or representative rules given as
examples. Therefore, the potential time-saving and utility of full text data extraction is much higher
because more time can be saved by automation and it provides automation that more closely reflects
the work done by systematic reviewers in practice. You will be able to get a quick price and instant
permission to reuse the content in many different ways. Watson, 2002), they are less common in
software engineer-. It does, however, include textbooks from a range of disciplines including
medicine, nursing, education and the social sciences, which arguably increases the generalisability of
the findings. Because a study may be associated with multiple reports, it is important to record the
study ID as well as the report ID. The authors included more than 50 publications in this version of
their review that addressed extraction of data from abstracts, while less (26%) used full texts.
Table 4 shows a summary of the corpora, their size, classes, links to the datasets, and cross-reference
to known publications re-using each data set. If you prefer to design your own coded data extraction
form from scratch, Elamin et al. (2009) offer advice on how to decide what electronic tools to use to
extract data for analytical reviews. JJD received support from the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical
Research Centre at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University
of Birmingham. Conversely, data mining allows consumers to examine data from several angles.
These methods may also be more prone to errors in data entry than some of the more automated
methods. For rule-based methods we looked for a description of how rules were derived, and for a
list of full or representative rules given as examples. The authors utilized features such as part-of-
speech tag of the previous and next words and whether the sentence is grammatically complete
(contained a verb). COPY CITATION DETAILS Report a concern Respond or Comment
COMMENT ON THIS REPORT Views 0 Cite How to cite this report: Kaiser KA. Beyond data
extraction, Docparser exports it to your database, wherever it is: in a spreadsheet or cloud software.
More than one architecture component per publication is possible. This is of particular importance
given prompt diagnosis and intervention can improve ED treatment outcomes and recovery
prospects. 28 In this scoping review, we aim to examine the extent, range and nature of research
activity into disordered eating and EDs among minority ethnic populations in the UK, Canada,
Australia and New Zealand. Given the important functions of data collection forms, ample time and
thought should be invested in their design. Table 4 provides the sources of all corpora and
publications using them. Systematic reviews in medical education: A practical approach: AMEE
Guide 94. Data Extraction At least two reviewers should independently extract data to reduce bias
and errors. Patient and public involvement Patients or the public have not been involved in the
design, conduct, reporting or dissemination plans of this scoping review. Where feasible, information
should be sought (and presented in the review) that is sufficient for replication of the interventions
under study. Data extraction One author developed the first draft of the data extraction form to
gather information on the items of interest. For effective data extraction and rigorous synthesis in
reviews, the use of literature summary tables is of utmost importance. F1000Research. 2022; 11
(783). Publisher Full Text 71. Related reviews up to 2020: Reviews up to 2020 focus on discussions
around tool development and integration in practice, and mark the starting date of the inclusion of
automation methods based on neural networks. Living review methodology 2.2 We are conducting a
living review because the field of systematic review (semi) automation is evolving rapidly along with
advances in language processing, machine-learning and deep-learning. Quality Appraisal Evidence
Synthesis Interpret Results Reporting with PRISMA 2020 Once the search and selection of studies
for inclusion is completed the next step is to read the full text of each article identified for inclusion
in the Systematic Review and extract the relevant data using a standardised data extraction form.
Several studies have shown that data extraction errors are frequent in systematic reviews, especially
regarding outcome data. We updated existing figures and tables with the exception of Table 1(pre-
processing techniques), because reliance on pre-processing has decreased in recent years. We
reviewed current recommendations on data extraction methods in systematic reviews across a
different range of sources. Yes Have the search and update schedule been clearly defined and
justified. They utilized features such as MeSH semantic types, word overlap with title, number of
punctuation marks on random forests (RF), naive Bayes (NB), support vector machines (SVM), and
multi-layer perceptron (MLP) classifiers. Completed data extraction forms can be used to produce a
summary table of study characteristics that were considered important for inclusion in the Systematic
Review. If you do not have access to your original account, please contact us.
An online data extraction tool allows businesses to make a transition from paper to digital. Though it
is unlikely that all of your studies will produce the same measurement of effect (e.g., odds ratio,
relative risk ratio), many of these measurements can be transformed or converted to the measurement
you need for your meta-analysis. Most of the data elements were extracted with F-scores (a mean of
sensitivity and positive predictive value) of over 70 %. It can run Javascript on the pages and rotate
proxies for each request, allowing the user to view the raw HTML page without being banned.
Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ.
2009;339:b2535. Krnic Martinic M, Pieper D, Glatt A, Puljak L. Incorporate flexibility to allow for
variation in how data are reported. On Page 5, the exclusions listed have the use of pre-processing of
text, yet the results discuss the many papers that appear to have used that in their methods. Codes
related to the iterative and incremental design and development principle. For example, if after
reaching consensus on the first few studies, the authors note a frequent disagreement for specific
data, then coding instructions may need modification. We thank Patrick O’Driscoll for his help with
checking data, counts, and wording in the manuscript and the appendix. Octoparse only extracts data
from websites and not documents like tools like Docparser. However, there are templates and
guidance available. JJD received support from the NIHR Birmingham Biomedical Research Centre
at the University Hospitals Birmingham NHS Foundation Trust and the University of Birmingham.
The state of science relevant to automating data extraction is summarized here (Jonnalagadda et al
2015). Some aspects of the paper would benefit from additional detail (in no particular order of
importance): The end game for the tracking of this area of literature is not explicitly described in the
abstract, nor is it discussed to a great extent at the end of the paper. A pre-existing framework, where
readily identified, may help to structure the data extraction template. 15 37 The same framework
may be used to present the findings. For example, a statement indicating that, unless otherwise
specified, all data came from the primary reference for each included study would suffice.
Automating or even semi-automating this step could substantially decrease the time taken to
complete systematic reviews and thus decrease the time lag for research evidence to be translated
into clinical practice. In order to identify candidate principles, each code was investi-. Our focus was
the usefulness of the HTA method documents as a guidance to systematic reviewers outside of HTA
institutions, however. This is not surprising, because systematic reviews of interventions are the most
common type of systematic review, and they are usually focusing on evidence from RCTs.
Compared to other tools on this list, Stitch lacks some important data transformation features as it
focuses more on extracting and loading the data. For example, when a full journal article and
multiple conference abstracts are available, it is likely that the majority of information will be
obtained from the journal article; completing a new data collection form for each conference abstract
may be a waste of time. They are frequently used in studies published between 2005 and now but
their usage started declining with the advent of neural models. Users that want to use Import.io need
to schedule a consultation with their sales team. Real-life evaluations, such as the percentage of
outputs needing human correction, or time saved per article, were reported by two publications, 32,
46 and an evaluation as part of a wider screening system was done in another. 71 3.2.3 Type of data
3.2.3.1 Scope and data Most data extraction is carried out on abstracts (See Table A1 in Underlying
data, 127 and the supplementary table giving an overview of all included publications). It does,
however, include textbooks from a range of disciplines including medicine, nursing, education and
the social sciences, which arguably increases the generalisability of the findings. The team seeks to
align the review question and the requirements of the knowledge user with available time and
resources. These methods may also be more prone to errors in data entry than some of the more
automated methods. Either of these would help to advance the field further.