1. Forum to improve your experience entering data into SRDR 1 SRDR is being developed and maintained by the Brown EPC under contract with the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, MD (Contract No. HHSA 290-2012-00012-I). Brown EPC School of Public Health Brown University

2. Objectives Review methods of entering data into SRDR Summarize how EPCs are using SRDR Share recent survey findings Obtain feedback Overall objective: To improve your experience entering data into SRDR 2

3. Review: Entering data into SRDR Definition of prospective data entry -Entering data into SRDR concurrent with the data abstraction task Definition of retrospective data entry -Copying data to SRDR that has already been abstracted using other software or paper forms. 3

4. Review: Methods 4 Prospective data entryRetrospective data entry 1.Manual entry (concurrent with data abstraction) 1.Manual entry (post data abstraction) 2. Importing 3. Uploading Manual entry: Requires typing or copying and pasting data values, individually, into data fields on SRDR extraction forms. Importing: Requires, first, formatting and saving the data as a Microsoft Excel spreadsheet. Data from the spreadsheet is then read and transferred, in batch, by the SRDR Data Import tool into data fields on SRDR extraction forms. Uploading: Requires using the SRDR Report Manager tool to “attach” files (PDF, text, MS Word, MS Excel …) containing study data.

5. Review: pros and cons of methods 5 Manual entryImportingUploading Accessibility of the data entered into SRDR Data is saved in a structured database and searchable within fields (allows for selective export and easy identification) ✓✓✕ Data can be reused in other SRDR projects ✓✓✕ Usefulness of the data entered into SRDR Data entered into SRDR can be exported in structured export files ✓✓✕ Date entered into SRDR is fine grain (comprehensive) ✓✕✓ Effort required to enter data into SRDR Data can be entered into SRDR in its original format (no additional steps necessary; doesn't affect EPC workflow) ✓✕✓ Method of entering data is easy to learn ✕ Maybe ✓ Data can be entered for multiple studies at a time ✕✓✓

6. Use of SRDR by EPCs 31 EPC projects have been independently published to SRDR (as of Dec. 2015) -5 prospectively entered (16%) -26 retrospectively entered (84%) Before 2015 -5 prospectively entered (36%) -9 retrospectively entered (64%) During 2015 -0 prospectively entered (0%) -17 retrospectively entered (100%) 6

7. Use of SRDR by EPCs (cont’d.) Breakdown of methods used to enter data into the 26 published EPC projects that were retrospectively entered into SRDR 7

8. Results of QI Questionnaire Preference of respondents for prospective or retrospective data entry *Note: sample size = 17 8

9. Results (cont’d.) Use among respondents of either the importing or uploading method of entering data retrospectively into SRDR 9 Importing Method (n=16)Uploading Method (n=16)

10. Challenges reported by respondents entering data prospectively into SRDR Related to SRDR coding / user interface -“Structure of the export file makes data analysis difficult” -“SRDR loads/ saves data over entire tab, instead of by field” Related to the complexity of the data being entered -A lot of cleaning required to reconcile “user-defined” arms and outcome titles -“Handling of qualitative data could be better” Related to conforming routine EPC workflow to SRDR -“The length of the training and the complexity of the tool made it difficult to share with already busy professionals” -“The presentation and format of data exported from SRDR after prospective entry do not readily map to how my EPC prepares summary tables for our reports” 10

11. Challenges reported by respondents entering data retrospectively into SRDR Related to SRDR coding / user interface -Manual entry: “Navigation on the Results tab should mirror those found on other applications” (e.g. double clicking in a cell, tabbing) -Manual entry: “pop-up indicating data was saved seems to be inconsistent across tabs” -Manual entry: “time consuming to enter data”; “Too many clicks” -Data import: “Still unable to import into Results, Quality tabs” Related to the complexity of the data being entered -Manual entry: “Time points of outcomes cannot be rearranged in Outcomes tab as they can in the Results tab” Related to conforming routine EPC workflow to SRDR -Manual entry: Collaborators (i.e., regular data extractors) may want to view [exported] data so they can reconcile without having to get it from the editor(s)”. 11

12. Related to incorporating prospective data entry into your EPC’s systematic review workflow? Related to SRDR coding / user interface? Related to complexity of the data being entered? Related to conforming routine EPC workflow to SRDR? Other challenges? What challenges have you encountered? 12

13. Improvements suggested by respondents entering data prospectively into SRDR Related to SRDR coding / user interface -“The capability to incorporate skip logic would be incredibly useful” -“Data validation options for blank text boxes” (e.g. numerical) -“Add HTML coding to text boxes across tabs and instructions fields” (allows for paragraph breaks, bulleted lists, etc.) Related to the complexity of the data being entered -“Allow for a preview of how a project will appear when published before the user needs to click upload Related to conforming routine EPC workflow to SRDR -“Make export tool available to collaborators instead of just [project leads]” 13

14. Improvements suggested by respondents entering data retrospectively into SRDR Related to SRDR coding / user interface -Manual entry: “Navigation on the Results tab should mirror those found on other applications” (e.g. double clicking in a cell, tabbing) -Manual entry: “given that the program is hosted on the internet that can at times be fickle, it would be great if there was some way to have an auto-save capability” -Data import: “It would be incredibly helpful to have the ability to import data from tables accessible from the SRDR’s UI” Related to the complexity of the data being entered -Data import: “Allow for a preview of how a project will appear when published before the user needs to click upload” Related to conforming routine EPC workflow to SRDR -Manual entry: Add option to remove “User Defined Measure” feature in Results tab of extraction form template 14

15. 15 Related to incorporating prospective data entry into your EPC’s systematic review workflow? Related to SRDR coding / user interface? Related to complexity of the data being entered? Related to conforming routine EPC workflow to SRDR? Other improvements? What Improvements would you suggest?

16. 16 Have additional thoughts you’d like to share with us? We’d love to hear them. Co ntact the SRDR Team: Email: SRDR@AHRQ.HHS.govSRDR@AHRQ.HHS.gov Phone: (401) 863-5791; 9:00am – 5:00pm (EST)