Streamlining science with structured data archives: insights from stroke rehabilitation
- 361 Downloads
Recent advances in bibliometrics have focused on text-mining to organize scientific disciplines based on author networks, keywords, and citations. These approaches provide insights, but fail to capture important experimental data that exist in many scientific disciplines. The objective of our paper is to show how such data can be used to organize the literature within a discipline, and identify knowledge gaps. Our approach is especially important for disciplines relying on randomized control trials. Using stroke rehabilitation as an informative example, we construct an interactive graphing platform to address domain general scientific questions relating to bias, common data elements, and relationships between key constructs in a field. Our platform allows researchers to ask their own questions and systematically search the literature from the data up.
KeywordsMeta-science Randomized controlled trials Data visualization Bibliometrics
The authors would like to thank Adam Raikes, a Ph.D. student at Utah State University, for his assistance with data management/extraction. In addition, we are grateful to the insights and feedback provided by Yedurag Babu, a recent graduate of Auburn University and a current data scientist at The Home Depot, on some of the earlier versions of the interactive visualizations.
- Cooper, H. M. (1998). Synthesizing research: A guide for literature reviews (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Crowley, P. (1996). Prophylactic corticosteroids for preterm birth. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. doi: 10.1002/14651858.CD000065.
- Cumming, G. (2013). The new statistics why and how. Psychological Science. 0956797613504966.Google Scholar
- Fink, A. (2005). Conducting research literature reviews: From the Internet to paper. Thousand Oaks: Sage.Google Scholar
- Chalmers, I., & Haynes, B. (1995). Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. In I. Chalmers, & D. G. Altman (Eds.), Systematic reviews (pp. 86–95). London: BMJ publishing Group.Google Scholar
- Higgins, J. P., & Green, S. (Eds.). (2011). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (Vol. 4). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons.Google Scholar
- Lang, C. E., Strube, M. J., Bland, M. D., Waddell, K. J., Cherry-Allen, K. M., Nudo, R. J., et al. (2016). Dose response of task-specific upper limb training in people at least 6 months poststroke: A phase II, single-blind, randomized, controlled trial. Annals of Neurology, 80(3), 342–354.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
- Lohse, K. R., Schaefer, S. Y., Raikes, A. C., Boyd, L. A., & Lang, C. E. (2016). Asking new questions with old data: The centralized open-access rehabilitation database for stroke. Frontiers in Neurology. doi: 10.3389/fneur.2016.00153.
- Maher, C. G., Sherrington, C., Herbert, R. D., Moseley, A. M., & Elkins, M. (2003). Reliability of the PEDro scale for rating of quality randomized controlled trials. Physical Therapy, 83, 713–721.Google Scholar
- National Science Foundation. (2011). A new visualization method makes research more organized and efficient. https://www.nsf.gov/discoveries/discsumm.jsp?cntnid=122509.
- Wirth, R. Hipp, J. (2000) CRISP-DM: Towards a standard process model for data mining. In Proceedings of the 4th international conference on the practical applications of knowledge discovery and data mining. (pp. 29–39).Google Scholar
- Stinear, C. M., & Byblow, W. D. (2014). Predicting and accelerating motor recovery after stroke. Current Opinion in Neurology, 27(6), 624–630.Google Scholar
- Whyte, J., & Hart, T. (2003). It’s more than a black box, it’s a Russian doll: Defining rehabilitation treatments. American Journal of Physical Medicine and Rehabilitation, 82, 639–653.Google Scholar
- Wickham, H., & Francois, R. (2015). dplyr: A grammar of data manipulation. R Package Version 0.4, 1, 20.Google Scholar