Coding, the
process by which the published papers in our sample were read, reviewed, and
documented, was done by C.C.W., W.D.B., J. W., and T.E.N. Articles used were
the result of a PubMed search over the past 10 years. At the onset, 1086
...
article required two separate ‘yes’ votes to be included in our study, and two
separate ‘no’ votes to be excluded. Disputes were resolved via group
discussion. 885 articles were included in our study of which 285 were randomly
sampled and divided evenly four ways.
After full text screening, 182 articles were included. Each person was partnered with another so
that all of the coding process was reviewed once over. The
articles were taken
from PubMed from the past 10 years. The papers were analyzed for nine specific
pieces of information: outcome, measurement device, metric, method of
aggregation, primacy of outcome, whether the outcome was a
hard harm or side effect
of an intervention, study design, sample size, & study type.
Google Sheets
and Google Drive were used An abstraction manual was formulated by D.H. to
document our analysis.
standardize the coding process.
