(Semi)automated approaches to data extraction for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in social sciences: A living review.

Q2 Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics F1000Research Pub Date : 2024-09-26 eCollection Date: 2024-01-01 DOI:10.12688/f1000research.151493.1
Amanda Legate, Kim Nimon, Ashlee Noblin
{"title":"(Semi)automated approaches to data extraction for systematic reviews and meta-analyses in social sciences: A living review.","authors":"Amanda Legate, Kim Nimon, Ashlee Noblin","doi":"10.12688/f1000research.151493.1","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>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.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>The baseline review of social science research yielded 23 relevant studies.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12260,"journal":{"name":"F1000Research","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2024-09-26","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11364972/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"F1000Research","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.151493.1","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2024/1/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
(社会科学系统综述和荟萃分析的数据提取(半)自动化方法:生动回顾。
背景:快速积累的大量科学证据为研究人员和从业人员带来了新的机遇,然而,这些优势往往被与查找和汇总不断扩大的科学信息相关的资源需求所掩盖。与证据综合相关的数据提取活动耗费时间,甚至严重限制了研究的实用性。在社会科学各学科中,利用自动化技术进行及时、准确的知识综合,可以提高研究成果的转化价值,更好地为关键政策的制定提供信息,并扩展当前对人类互动、组织和系统的理解。目前围绕自动化技术的发展高度集中在循证医学研究领域,而在临床研究领域之外应用自动化工具和技术的证据却非常有限。本研究的目标是通过综合社会科学家感兴趣的关键数据元素提取技术应用的当前趋势,扩展自动化知识库:我们报告了对支持社会科学系统综述和荟萃分析的自动化数据提取技术进行系统综述的基线结果。本综述遵循 PRISMA 标准报告系统综述:结果:对社会科学研究的基线综述产生了 23 项相关研究:在考虑系统综述和荟萃分析信息提取的自动化过程时,社会科学研究与侧重于自动处理 PICO 框架相关信息的临床研究相比存在不足。除少数例外情况外,大多数工具要么处于起步阶段,应用研究人员无法使用,要么针对特定领域,要么需要对文章进行大量手动编码才能实现自动化。此外,很少有解决方案考虑从表格中提取数据,而表格正是社会和行为科学家分析的关键数据元素所在。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
F1000Research
F1000Research Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics-Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutics (all)
CiteScore
5.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
1646
审稿时长
1 weeks
期刊介绍: F1000Research publishes articles and other research outputs reporting basic scientific, scholarly, translational and clinical research across the physical and life sciences, engineering, medicine, social sciences and humanities. F1000Research is a scholarly publication platform set up for the scientific, scholarly and medical research community; each article has at least one author who is a qualified researcher, scholar or clinician actively working in their speciality and who has made a key contribution to the article. Articles must be original (not duplications). All research is suitable irrespective of the perceived level of interest or novelty; we welcome confirmatory and negative results, as well as null studies. F1000Research publishes different type of research, including clinical trials, systematic reviews, software tools, method articles, and many others. Reviews and Opinion articles providing a balanced and comprehensive overview of the latest discoveries in a particular field, or presenting a personal perspective on recent developments, are also welcome. See the full list of article types we accept for more information.
期刊最新文献
A Dynamic, D-dimer-based Thromboprophylaxis Strategy in Patients with COVID-19. Association between Hematological Parameters and Severity of COVID-19 disease. Whole body vibration and rider comfort determination of an electric two-wheeler test rig. Comparison of the efficacy of aescin and diclofenac sodium in the management of postoperative sequelae and their effect on salivary Prostaglandin E2 and serum C-reactive protein levels after surgical removal of impacted mandibular third molar: a randomized, double-blind, controlled clinical trial. Data on selfـــefficacy  and its sources during the COVID-19 crisis:  A Saudi auditor's perspective.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1