Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
(Semi)automated approaches to data extraction for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in social sciences: A living review.
Legate, Amanda; Nimon, Kim; Noblin, Ashlee.
Afiliação
  • Legate A; Human Resource Development, The University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, Texas, 75799, USA.
  • Nimon K; Human Resource Development, The University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, Texas, 75799, USA.
  • Noblin A; Human Resource Development, The University of Texas at Tyler, Tyler, Texas, 75799, USA.
F1000Res ; 13: 664, 2024.
Article em En | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-39220382
ABSTRACT

Background:

An abundance of rapidly accumulating scientific evidence presents novel opportunities for researchers and practitioners alike, yet such advantages are often overshadowed by resource demands associated with finding and aggregating a continually expanding body of scientific information. Data extraction activities associated with evidence synthesis have been described as time-consuming to the point of critically limiting the usefulness of research. Across social science disciplines, the use of automation technologies for timely and accurate knowledge synthesis can enhance research translation value, better inform key policy development, and expand the current understanding of human interactions, organizations, and systems. Ongoing developments surrounding automation are highly concentrated in research for evidence-based medicine with limited evidence surrounding tools and techniques applied outside of the clinical research community. The goal of the present study is to extend the automation knowledge base by synthesizing current trends in the application of extraction technologies of key data elements of interest for social scientists.

Methods:

We report the baseline results of a living systematic review of automated data extraction techniques supporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the social sciences. This review follows PRISMA standards for reporting systematic reviews.

Results:

The baseline review of social science research yielded 23 relevant studies.

Conclusions:

When considering the process of automating systematic review and meta-analysis information extraction, social science research falls short as compared to clinical research that focuses on automatic processing of information related to the PICO framework. With a few exceptions, most tools were either in the infancy stage and not accessible to applied researchers, were domain specific, or required substantial manual coding of articles before automation could occur. Additionally, few solutions considered extraction of data from tables which is where key data elements reside that social and behavioral scientists analyze.
Assuntos
Palavras-chave

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ciências Sociais Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: F1000Res Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article

Texto completo: 1 Coleções: 01-internacional Base de dados: MEDLINE Assunto principal: Ciências Sociais Limite: Humans Idioma: En Revista: F1000Res Ano de publicação: 2024 Tipo de documento: Article