Methods for data extraction and data transformation in convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews
Pourquoi ce travail est dans la base
Une base qui oublie comment elle a trouvé un travail ne peut pas être vérifiée. Voici les voies qui ont admis celui-ci.
Notice bibliographique
Résumé
OBJECTIVE: The objective of this guidance paper is to describe data transformation involving qualitization, including when and how to undertake this process, and to clarify how it aligns with data extraction in order to expand on the current guidance for JBI convergent integrated mixed methods systematic reviews (MMSRs). INTRODUCTION: The convergent integrated approach to MMSRs involves combining extracted data from both quantitative studies (including the quantitative components of mixed methods studies) and qualitative studies (including the qualitative components of mixed methods studies). This process requires data transformation, which can occur either by converting qualitative data into quantitative data (ie, quantitizing ) or converting quantitative data into qualitative data (ie, qualitizing ). Data transformation involving qualitization is poorly understood in the context of MMSRs, and there is confusion regarding how to undertake this process, with much of the literature specific to primary mixed methods studies. There is a need to expand current guidance and provide more practical advice to reviewers on how to undertake this process. METHODS: The JBI MMSR Methodology Group took a multipronged approach to update its guidance. First, a structured search of the literature was conducted to determine what is known about data transformation, followed by analysis of a sample of systematic reviews that claimed to use the JBI convergent integrated approach to MMSRs. Approaches were summarized and used to inform the development of draft guidance. This guidance was iteratively revised following a series of online meetings, as well as presented to evidence synthesis experts at an international conference. Finally, the guidance was submitted to the JBI International Scientific Committee for discussion, feedback, and ratification. RESULTS: There is uncertainty in the literature regarding the process of data transformation within the context of MMSRs, with ill-defined approaches provided and variation in practice. In JBI convergent integrated MMSRs, it is recommended that data extraction from quantitative studies (or mixed method studies reporting quantitative findings) stays as close as possible to the data reported in the primary studies. Where data are absent or insufficient to meet the needs of the MMSR, systematic reviewers may need to construct the narrative representation using relevant data from the primary studies. Following data extraction, the process of qualitization occurs where extracted data (both quantitative and qualitative) are assembled, and reviewers are required to conduct detailed examination across data to identify likenesses and create categories based on similarities in meaning. CONCLUSION: To our knowledge, this is the most comprehensive guidance currently available for data extraction and qualitization for MMSRs. However, it is important to acknowledge the inherent variability in MMSRs and our methodology may need tailoring for certain situations. Further work will focus on examining how certainty and confidence in findings can be assessed within the framework of MMSRs.
Récupéré en direct depuis OpenAlex et désinversé. Les résumés ne sont pas conservés dans cette base de données : les index inversés représentent 8,6 Go des 9,3 Go de texte de la base, et le serveur dispose de 13 Go libres.
Prédiction distillée sur la base complète
Imitation des enseignantsNi prévalence calibrée, ni vérité terrain. Validation humaine à venir. Apprise à partir de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Codex et de 10 348 étiquettes directes de Gemma. Le mode candidate est l'union des têtes enseignantes seuillées; le consensus est leur intersection. Ces sorties portent le statut machine_predicted_unvalidated et ne sont ni des étiquettes humaines ni des étiquettes directes de modèles de pointe.
Scores Codex et Gemma par catégorie
| Catégorie | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Métarecherche | 0,530 | 0,602 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens strict) | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Méta-épidémiologie (sens large) | 0,005 | 0,001 |
| Bibliométrie | 0,001 | 0,002 |
| Études des sciences et des technologies | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Communication savante | 0,001 | 0,003 |
| Science ouverte | 0,005 | 0,000 |
| Intégrité de la recherche | 0,000 | 0,000 |
| Charge utile insuffisante (le modèle a refusé de juger) | 0,001 | 0,000 |
Scores machine (provisoires)
Les deux têtes enseignantes du modèle étudiant, lues sur ce travail. Un score ordonne la base pour la relecture; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie, et le statut de validation accompagne chaque rangée tel quel.
Scores de référence d'un modèle non mature (critères de maturité non atteints, 7 itérations). Un score ordonne; il n'affirme jamais une catégorie.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · tel quel depuis la passe de notation : score_only signifie que le nombre peut ordonner les travaux, et qu'aucune étiquette de catégorie n'en découle