The development and evaluation of an online application to assist in the extraction of data from graphs for use in systematic reviews.
The development and evaluation of an online application to assist in the extraction of data from graphs for use in systematic reviews.
复制标题
DOI：
10.12688/wellcomeopenres.14738.3
复制
发表时间：
2018-01-01
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Thomas, James
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Cramond, Fala;O'Mara-Eves, Alison;Thomas, James
背景资料：系统评价的结果依赖于从主要研究报告中提取的数据，需要准确地进行。为了提高可靠性，建议两名研究人员独立进行数据提取。从PDF文件中的图表中提取统计数据尤其具有挑战性，因为该过程通常完全是手动的，并且审阅者有时需要恢复到将标尺放在页面上以读取值：这是一个固有的耗时且容易出错的过程。研究方法：为了缓解上述一些问题，我们集成和定制了两个现有的JavaScript库，以创建一个新的基于Web的图形数据提取工具，以帮助审查人员从图形中提取数据。该工具旨在通过用户界面，通过鼠标点击提取数据，以促进更准确和及时的数据提取。我们进行了非劣效性评估，以检查其性能相比，参与者的标准做法，从PDF文件中的图形提取数据。结果：我们发现定制的图形数据提取工具并不劣于用户（N=10）之前的标准实践。我们的研究并不是为了显示优越性，而是表明，平均而言，参与者使用新工具每张图节省了大约6分钟，同时准确性也大幅提高。结论：我们的研究表明，将这种类型的工具纳入在线系统评价软件将有利于促进准确和及时的证据合成，以改善决策。
Background: The extraction of data from the reports of primary studies, on which the results of systematic reviews depend, needs to be carried out accurately. To aid reliability, it is recommended that two researchers carry out data extraction independently. The extraction of statistical data from graphs in PDF files is particularly challenging, as the process is usually completely manual, and reviewers need sometimes to revert to holding a ruler against the page to read off values: an inherently time-consuming and error-prone process. Methods: To mitigate some of the above problems we integrated and customised two existing JavaScript libraries to create a new web-based graphical data extraction tool to assist reviewers in extracting data from graphs. This tool aims to facilitate more accurate and timely data extraction through a user interface which can be used to extract data through mouse clicks. We carried out a non-inferiority evaluation to examine its performance in comparison with participants' standard practice for extracting data from graphs in PDF documents. Results: We found that the customised graphical data extraction tool is not inferior to users' (N=10) prior standard practice. Our study was not designed to show superiority, but suggests that, on average, participants saved around 6 minutes per graph using the new tool, accompanied by a substantial increase in accuracy. Conclusions: Our study suggests that the incorporation of this type of tool in online systematic review software would be beneficial in facilitating the production of accurate and timely evidence synthesis to improve decision-making.