Piloting a data-extraction form for verbatim terminology: a blinded inter-reviewer agreement study before a surgical evidence map
Ribeiro, P. A.; Servidoni, A. C.; Andres, M. P.; Abrao, H.; Karam, G.; Salomao, H.; Abrao, M. S.
Show abstract
Background: Data-extraction forms are tested before use in systematic reviews, but the guidance and error studies behind that practice concern numerical data. When the datum is a term transcribed verbatim from a source, as in evidence maps that inventory terminology, neither an agreement measure nor extraction conventions are established. We piloted, before Phase 1 of the ATLAS-ONTO project, a form built to extract operative-step terms from the surgical literature on deep endometriosis, to determine whether it produced acceptable inter-reviewer agreement and what revisions it required. Methods: Blinded inter-reviewer agreement study, reported according to GRRAS. Two reviewers independently extracted terms from 11 purposively heterogeneous articles in English and French. The primary measure was the mean per-article Jaccard index of normalized term sets, with an explicit rule for empty sets; secondary measures were Cohen's kappa for categorical attributes of exactly matching terms and simple agreement for anatomical structure. Thresholds were fixed before extraction (Jaccard >=0.70; kappa >=0.60; simple agreement >=0.80). Unmatched terms were classified retrospectively by mechanism, and the same articles were reassessed after a harmonization session. Results: Eight articles were extracted, seven with a defined index. The form failed its threshold: the mean Jaccard index was 0.581 (pooled 55/92 = 0.598). Of 92 terms, 55 matched exactly and 37 did not; the unmatched terms were attributed to source coverage (21), span extent (8), source-language comprehension (7) and one residual discrepancy. kappa conditional on the 55 matching terms was high (end definition 0.930; laterality 0.781) and anatomical-structure agreement was 0.873, so kappa alone did not detect the failure. Two record-integrity defects found during analysis are reported with their effect. Four written conventions and a split start-definition field followed; reassessment after harmonization reached 0.913, which is convergence, not independent reproducibility. Conclusions: A form that extracts terminology or verbatim text should be piloted with a set-overlap measure, a rule for empty sets and a defined admissible source, against a threshold fixed in advance. The mechanisms of discordance found here are properties of text extraction and are not specific to surgery. The revised form will be tested on new material in Phase 1.
Matching journals
The top 5 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
Similar papers in this journal
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 92%
- Large language model-based information extraction from free-text radiology reports: a scoping review protocol 92%
- Validity of intraoperative imageless navigation (Naviswiss™) for component positioning accuracy in primary total hip arthroplasty: Protocol for a prospective observational cohort study in a single-surgeon practice 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Approach to standardized material characterization of the human lumbopelvic system - Testing and evaluation 85%
- Effect of Adapted Ergometer Setup and Rowing Speed on Lower Extremity Loading in People with and without Spinal Cord Injury 85%
- Detection and Measurement of Hypopyon on Slit Lamp Examination Versus Anterior Segment Optical Coherence Tomography 85%
Similar papers in this journal
- Large Language Models for Zero-Shot Procedure Extraction in Orthopedic Surgery: A Comparative Evaluation 90%
- Researcher and Clinician Preferences for a Journal Transparency Tool: A Mixed-Methods Survey and Focus Group Study 90%
- Content-based image retrieval assists radiologists in diagnosing eye and orbital mass lesions in MRI 90%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.