Antonia Jelicic Kadic1, Katarina Vucic2, Svjetlana Dosenovic1, Damir Sapunar1, Livia Puljak3. 1. Cochrane Croatia, University of Split School of Medicine, Soltanska 2, 21000 Split, Croatia. 2. Department for Quality, Safety and Efficacy Assessment of Medicinal Products, Agency for medicinal products and medical devices, Ksaverska cesta 4, 10000 Zagreb, Croatia. 3. Cochrane Croatia, University of Split School of Medicine, Soltanska 2, 21000 Split, Croatia. Electronic address: livia@mefst.hr.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To compare speed and accuracy of graphical data extraction using manual estimation and open source software. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data points from eligible graphs/figures published in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2009 to 2014 were extracted by two authors independently, both by manual estimation and with the Plot Digitizer, open source software. Corresponding authors of each RCT were contacted up to four times via e-mail to obtain exact numbers that were used to create graphs. Accuracy of each method was compared against the source data from which the original graphs were produced. RESULTS: Software data extraction was significantly faster, reducing time for extraction for 47%. Percent agreement between the two raters was 51% for manual and 53.5% for software data extraction. Percent agreement between the raters and original data was 66% vs. 75% for the first rater and 69% vs. 73% for the second rater, for manual and software extraction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data extraction from figures should be conducted using software, whereas manual estimation should be avoided. Using software for data extraction of data presented only in figures is faster and enables higher interrater reliability.
OBJECTIVES: To compare speed and accuracy of graphical data extraction using manual estimation and open source software. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Data points from eligible graphs/figures published in randomized controlled trials (RCTs) from 2009 to 2014 were extracted by two authors independently, both by manual estimation and with the Plot Digitizer, open source software. Corresponding authors of each RCT were contacted up to four times via e-mail to obtain exact numbers that were used to create graphs. Accuracy of each method was compared against the source data from which the original graphs were produced. RESULTS: Software data extraction was significantly faster, reducing time for extraction for 47%. Percent agreement between the two raters was 51% for manual and 53.5% for software data extraction. Percent agreement between the raters and original data was 66% vs. 75% for the first rater and 69% vs. 73% for the second rater, for manual and software extraction, respectively. CONCLUSIONS: Data extraction from figures should be conducted using software, whereas manual estimation should be avoided. Using software for data extraction of data presented only in figures is faster and enables higher interrater reliability.
Authors: L Susan Wieland; Nicole Skoetz; Karen Pilkington; Ramaprabhu Vempati; Christopher R D'Adamo; Brian M Berman Journal: Cochrane Database Syst Rev Date: 2017-01-12
Authors: Wiremu S MacFater; Weisi Xia; Ahmed Barazanchi; Bruce Su'a; Darren Svirskis; Andrew G Hill Journal: World J Surg Date: 2018-10 Impact factor: 3.352
Authors: Joao P De Aquino; Suprit Parida; Victor J Avila-Quintero; Jose Flores; Peggy Compton; Thomas Hickey; Oscar Gómez; Mehmet Sofuoglu Journal: Drug Alcohol Depend Date: 2021-09-22 Impact factor: 4.492
Authors: Elizabeth E Blears; Jessica K Elias; Christian Tapking; Craig Porter; Victoria G Rontoyanni Journal: J Clin Med Date: 2021-05-19 Impact factor: 4.241