A randomized trial provided new evidence on the accuracy and efficiency of traditional vs electronically annotated abstraction approaches in systematic reviews.

OBJECTIVE Data Abstraction Assistant (DAA) is a software for linking items abstracted into a data collection form for a systematic review to their locations in a study report. We conducted a randomized crossover trial that compared DAA-facilitated single data abstraction plus verification ("DAA verification"), single data abstraction plus verification ("regular verification"), and independent dual data abstraction plus adjudication ("independent abstraction"). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING An online randomized crossover trial with 26 pairs of data abstractors. Each pair abstracted data from six articles, two per approach. Outcomes were the proportion of errors and time taken. RESULTS Overall proportion of errors was 17% for DAA verification, 16% for regular verification, and 15% for independent abstraction. DAA verification was associated with higher odds of errors when compared with regular verification (adjusted odds ratio [OR]=1.08; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.99 to 1.17) or independent abstraction (adjusted OR=1.12; 95% CI: 1.03 to 1.22). For each article, DAA verification took 20 minutes (95% CI: 1 to 40) longer than regular verification but 46 minutes (95% CI: 26 to 66) shorter than independent abstraction. CONCLUSION Independent abstraction may only be necessary for complex data items. DAA provides an audit trail that is crucial for reproducible research.