How to Extract Data for a Systematic Review
Data extraction means systematically recording the characteristics, methods and results of each included study. A well-planned, piloted form, extraction in duplicate or with independent verification, and a record of contacts and decisions reduce errors.
Plan what to extract
- Study identification: authors, year, registration number, funding, conflicts.
- Methods: design, setting, dates, sample size.
- Participants: eligibility, age, sex, baseline characteristics.
- Interventions and comparators: details and duration.
- Outcomes: definitions, measurement tools, time points.
- Results: effect estimates, confidence intervals, event counts or means and SDs for each group.
- Risk-of-bias information.
- Notes: where in the paper each datum came from.
Process
- Draft the form from your protocol.
- Pilot it on 3–5 studies and revise.
- Extract independently (or one extracts and another checks all or a sample) and resolve differences.
- Contact authors for missing data, noting dates and replies.
- Convert and calculate with care, documenting formulas and assumptions.
- Lock the dataset before analysis.
MRN provides a free data extraction template as a spreadsheet starting point.
Illustrative example
Invented for teaching. A study reports medians and interquartile ranges, but the planned meta-analysis uses means. The team records the original numbers, applies a documented conversion method from the Cochrane Handbook and flags the study for a sensitivity analysis.
Common extraction traps
Effect sizes may be reported as odds ratios, risk ratios or hazard ratios; do not mix them without thought. Outcomes at several times need a rule for choosing which to use. Intention-to-treat and per-protocol results can differ, so record which one you extracted. Subgroup data may appear in supplements. Keep a list of data you calculated and the formula, since reviewers may ask.
Common pitfalls
- Extracting without piloting.
- Overwriting entries with no change log.
- Mixing up different time points.
Key takeaways
- Plan, pilot, double-check and document.
- Keep source locations for each data point.
References and further reading
- Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al., editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane. Link
- Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
- Rethlefsen ML, Kirtley S, Waffenschmidt S, et al. PRISMA-S: an extension to the PRISMA statement for reporting literature searches in systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2021;10:39. doi:10.1186/s13643-020-01542-z
Related reading
This page is general educational information about research methods. It is not medical, legal or regulatory advice; follow your institution's ethics board and your target journal's instructions.
