Evidence Extraction Method
This proposed method provides a structured way to record study findings, limitations and source context without overstating the evidence.
#Link reports to the underlying study
Cochrane treats studies, rather than reports, as the unit of interest in an intervention review. One study can have several reports, and one report can describe more than one study. Its Handbook explains why multiple reports need to be linked rather than counted as independent studies.
Record which study a source describes and which part of it supplies the finding. Extra reports can add useful information without adding independent participants. This page explains an extraction approach, not a claim that Mynd has completed a systematic review.
Evidence: Cochrane Handbook: collecting study data
#Use structured fields without losing meaning
Cochrane calls for data collection forms that preserve sufficient, unambiguous information from sources. Its extraction standards describe recording participants, interventions, comparators, outcomes and study design, alongside numerical information needed for the planned analysis.
Keep the outcome, time point, population, comparison, units and uncertainty with a result. A number detached from these details may answer a different question. The form should fit the review question; this page is not a complete form for every study type.
Evidence: Cochrane Handbook: collecting study data / Cochrane MECIR: data extraction and checking
#Plan checks and disagreement handling
Cochrane's MECIR standards call for independent duplicate extraction of outcome data and a process for resolving disagreements defined in advance. They explain that duplication reduces mistakes and the influence of one person's data-selection choices. They also call for checking the magnitude and direction of effects against the original studies.
Record the check performed and any unresolved disagreement. A second pass is useful only if its scope and independence are clear. These are Cochrane intervention-review standards, not evidence that Mynd employs a review team or has independently checked every collected record.
#Keep source changes and uncertainty traceable
Cochrane asks reviewers to examine relevant errata and retraction statements. ICMJE's journal recommendations describe correction notices, dated new versions and archives of earlier versions. These help readers distinguish a changed source from the original publication.
Keep the source version and the reason for an extraction change in the record. Conflicting or missing information should remain visible rather than being silently filled in. This proposed method does not promise a staffed correction service, continuous monitoring or a clinical review.
Evidence: Cochrane Handbook: collecting study data / ICMJE: corrections and version control
Source note
The sections above were checked against the linked sources. No clinical review has been performed. This is general research education, not a clinical guideline.