At this stage, you will develop your evidence tables, which give detailed information for each study (see Table 1 in this article). You can create evidence tables to describe study characteristics, results, or both.
Data extraction requires a lot of planning. We will review some of the tools you can use for data extraction, the types of information you will want to extract.
What data you extract will depend on your research question and the needs of your review.
Helpful data for an intervention question may include:
If you are doing a qualitative review, you may want to extract data on the theoretical framework, data collection method, and role of researcher and their potential bias.
Individual studies are evaluated for potential bias, based on study design and reporting. When conducting a systematic review, at least one critical appraisal tool should be chosen, a priori, to evaluate the studies.
Consult the following article for general information on risk of bias assessment.
Study Type | JBI Critical Appraisal Tools | CASP: Critical Appraisal Checklists | LEGEND Evidence Evaluation Tools | Risk of Bias Tools (formerly Cochrane Risk of Bias Tools) | Quality assessment tool for quantitative studies (EPHPP) | SIGN Checklists | GRADE system
(Used with other tools to evaluate intervention outcomes) |
AGREE II | AMSTAR 2 | |
Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | |||
Non-randomized Trial | X | X | X | X | ||||||
Cohort Studies | X | X | X | X | X | |||||
Case-Control Studies | X | X | X | X | ||||||
Cross-Sectional Studies | X | X | ||||||||
Diagnostic Studies | X | X | X | |||||||
Economic Studies | X | X | X | |||||||
Mixed Methods | X | X | ||||||||
Qualitative Studies | X | X | X | |||||||
Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | X | ||
Clinical Practice Guidelines | X | X | ||||||||
Other Study Designs | X | X |
Many of the following were consulted for this table. Please consult these resources to find: evaluations of many of these tools, appraisal tools focused on other study designs, and additional critical appraisal tools.
- Evidence Tools - assembled by CareSearch (which is funded by the Australian Government Department of Health and Aged Care)
- Repository of Quality Assessment and Risk of Bias Tools OSF.xlsx (maintained by Duke University's Medical Center Library & Archives)
- "Select a quality Assessment tool" (University of North Carolina Health Sciences Library LibGuide page, Systematic Reviews: Step 6: Assess Quality of Included Studies)
- Study Quality Assessment Tools - "In 2013, NHLBI [National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute] developed a set of tailored quality assessment tools to assist reviewers in focusing on concepts that are key to a study’s internal validity. While these tools have not been independently published and would not be considered standardized, they may be useful to the research community."
- CATevaluation - Critical Appraisal Tools (CATs) (supported by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR-IRSC), le Fonds de recherche du Québec – Santé (FRQS), and the Method Development Component of the Quebec SPOR Support Unit)
- Farrah K, Young K, Tunis MC, Zhao L. Risk of bias tools in systematic reviews of health interventions: an analysis of PROSPERO-registered protocols. Syst Rev. 2019 Nov 15;8(1):280. doi: 10.1186/s13643-019-1172-8.
- Grey Literature - "The AACODS checklist is designed to enable evaluation and critical appraisal of grey literature. Grey (unpublished) studies and RCTs should be appraised using the same tools as their black (published) counterparts."
While librarians do not provide assistance with statistics, the Biostatistics and Health Data Science offers assistance.