5.2.7.1 Phase one of data extraction

This section of the review should include details of the types of data extracted for inclusion in the review. An extraction in JBI SUMARI includes fields relating to the type of text, its authors and participants, and the content of the paper.  Textual data (conclusions) are extracted from papers included in the review using the standardized data extraction tool for textual evidence reviews. The data extracted will include specific details about the phenomena of interest, populations, and any outcomes of significance to the review question and specific objectives.

The specific fields and types of text to extract are as follows:

1. Types of text
   The type of textual evidence that is being extracted, for example, from narrative, an expert opinion, a consensus guideline, conference proceedings, policy reports or reports accessed from web pages of professional organizations.
   
   

2. Population represented
   To whom the paper refers or relates.
   
   

3. Setting / Context (may be clinical, cultural or geographical)
   Setting is the specific location where the opinion was written, for example, a nursing home, a hospital or a dementia specific ward in a sub-acute hospital. Some papers will have no setting at all.
   
   The geographical context is the location of the author(s) – be as specific as possible, for example Poland, Austria, or rural New Zealand.
   
   The cultural context is the cultural features in the publication setting, such as, but not limited to, time period (16th Century); ethnic groupings (indigenous Australians); age groupings (e.g. older people living in the community); or socio-economic groups (e.g. working class). When entering information it is important to be as specific as possible. This data should identify cultural features such as time period, employment, lifestyle, ethnicity, age, gender, and socio-economic class or context.
   
   

4. Stated allegiance/position
   A short statement from the expert voice summarizing the main thrust of the publication.
   
   

5. Conclusion (with illustration from text and page number)
   Use this field to describe the main finding/s of the publication. This includes an assessment of the clarity of the argument’s presentation and logic. Is other evidence provided to support assumptions and conclusions? Is it based on clinical or life experience?
   Levels of credibility (Unequivocal/Credible/Not Supported) can be assigned in this section (see further detail in data synthesis section)
   
   

6. Reviewer’s conclusion
   Use this field to summarize the strengths and weaknesses of the paper.
   
   

7. Notes
   This section of the report should include any other notes the reviewer wants to make. It may also include techniques that have been used to analyze the data, e.g. named software program.