Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors01:15

Systematic Error: Methodological and Sampling Errors

8.4K
In the case of systematic errors, the sources can be identified, and the errors can be subsequently minimized by addressing these sources. According to the source, systematic errors can be divided into sampling, instrumental, methodological, and personal errors.
Sampling errors originate from improper sampling methods or the wrong sample population. These errors can be minimized by refining the sampling strategy. Defective instruments or faulty calibrations are the sources of instrumental...
8.4K
Data Validation01:15

Data Validation

535
Method validation is a crucial process in analytical chemistry designed to confirm that a given method consistently produces reliable and high-quality results. This process is essential when a method is applied to different sample matrices or when procedural modifications are made, ensuring that the results meet acceptable standards across various applications.
Key parameters for method validation include:
535
Data Validation01:03

Data Validation

6.2K
Data validation is an essential part of a comprehensive assessment. Validation is confirming or verifying and opening the door to gathering more assessment data as it clarifies vague or unclear data. The process of checking and verifying the collected information is called data validation. The primary purpose of data validation is to ensure data is as free from error, bias, and misinterpretation as possible.
Nursing assessment guides are generally based on holistic models rather than medical...
6.2K
Statistical Analysis: Overview01:11

Statistical Analysis: Overview

14.0K
When we take repeated measurements on the same or replicated samples, we will observe inconsistencies in the magnitude. These inconsistencies are called errors. To categorize and characterize these results and their errors, the researcher can use statistical analysis to determine the quality of the measurements and/or suitability of the methods.
One of the most commonly used statistical quantifiers is the mean, which is the ratio between the sum of the numerical values of all results and the...
14.0K
Extraction: Advanced Methods00:56

Extraction: Advanced Methods

1.0K
Metal ions can be separated from one another by complexation with organic ligands–the chelating agent– to form uncharged chelates. Here, the chelating agent must contain hydrophobic groups and behave as a weak acid, losing a proton to bind with the metal. Since most organic ligands used in this process are insoluble or undergo oxidation in the aqueous phase, the chelating agent is initially added to the organic phase and extracted into the aqueous phase. The metal-ligand complex is...
1.0K
Random and Systematic Errors01:20

Random and Systematic Errors

14.2K
Scientists always try their best to record measurements with the utmost accuracy and precision. However, sometimes errors do occur. These errors can be random or systematic. Random errors are observed due to the inconsistency or fluctuation in the measurement process, or variations in the quantity itself that is being measured. Such errors fluctuate from being greater than or less than the true value in repeated measurements. Consider a scientist measuring the length of an earthworm using a...
14.2K

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

Perspectives on the definition of 'evidence': a qualitative interview study among interest-holders.

BMJ evidence-based medicine·2026
Same author

A systematic review of patient decision aids for hypertension.

BMC medical informatics and decision making·2026
Same author

An updated systematic review of the impact of volume of surgery and specialization in Norwood procedure.

BMC pediatrics·2026
Same author

Development of a core outcome set for studies on centralization of healthcare services.

BMC health services research·2026
Same author

Using routinely collected data for research purposes: challenges and mitigation strategies.

BMJ (Clinical research ed.)·2026
Same author

Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for scoping reviews: a scoping review.

Journal of clinical epidemiology·2026

Related Experiment Videos

Frequency of data extraction errors and methods to increase data extraction quality: a methodological review.

Tim Mathes1, Pauline Klaßen2, Dawid Pieper2

  • 1Institute for Research in Operative Medicinem, Chair of Surgical Research, Faculty of Health, School of Medicine, Witten/Herdecke University, Ostmerheimer Str. 200, 51109, Cologne, Germany. Tim.Mathes@uni-wh.de.

BMC Medical Research Methodology
|November 29, 2017
PubMed
Summary

Data extraction errors in systematic reviews are frequent, impacting results. Different methods and reviewer traits moderately affect error rates, highlighting a need for better standards.

Keywords:
AccuracyData extractionErrorsReviewersSystematic reviews

Related Experiment Videos

Area of Science:

  • Systematic Review Methodology
  • Meta-Analysis Quality Assurance

Background:

  • Data extraction errors are common in systematic reviews.
  • The impact of these errors on review outcomes is significant.
  • Established standards for data extraction may be insufficient.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To assess the frequency of data extraction errors in systematic reviews.
  • To evaluate the impact of errors on systematic review results.
  • To examine the influence of extraction methods and reviewer characteristics on error rates.

Main Methods:

  • A systematic review of methodological literature was conducted.
  • Searches included PubMed, Cochrane methodological registry, and manual searches.
  • Data extraction involved one reviewer with verification by a second.

Main Results:

  • High rates of data extraction errors were observed (up to 50%).
  • Errors frequently influenced effect estimates in systematic reviews.
  • Extraction methods and reviewer characteristics showed moderate effects on error rates.

Conclusions:

  • The current evidence base for data extraction standards is weak.
  • Further comparative studies are needed to understand extraction method influences.