Abstract
The amount of grey literature and ‘softer’ intelligence from social media or websites is vast. Given the long lead-times of producing high-quality peer-reviewed health information this is causing a demand for new ways to provide prompt input for secondary research. To our knowledge this is the first review of automated data extraction methods or tools for health-related grey literature and soft intelligence, with a focus on (semi)automating horizon scans, health technology assessments, evidence maps, or other literature reviews.
We searched six databases to cover both health– and computer-science literature. After deduplication, 10% of the search results were screened by two reviewers, the remainder was single-screened up to an estimated 95% sensitivity; screening was stopped early after screening an additional 1000 results with no new includes. All full texts were retrieved, screened, and extracted by a single reviewer and 10% were checked in duplicate.
We included 84 papers covering automation for health-related social media, internet fora, news, patents, government agencies and charities, or trial registers. From each paper we answered three research questions: Firstly, important functionalities for users of the tool or method; secondly, information about the level of support and reliability; and thirdly, practical challenges and research gaps.
Poor availability of code, data, and usable tools leads to low transparency regarding performance and duplication of work. Financial implications, scalability, integration into downstream workflows, and meaningful evaluations should be carefully planned before starting to develop a tool, given the vast amounts of data and opportunities those tools offer to expedite research.
Competing Interest Statement
The authors have declared no competing interest.
Funding Statement
This project is funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) [HSRIC-2016-10009/Innovation Observatory]. The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR or the Department of Health and Social Care.
Author Declarations
I confirm all relevant ethical guidelines have been followed, and any necessary IRB and/or ethics committee approvals have been obtained.
Yes
I confirm that all necessary patient/participant consent has been obtained and the appropriate institutional forms have been archived, and that any patient/participant/sample identifiers included were not known to anyone (e.g., hospital staff, patients or participants themselves) outside the research group so cannot be used to identify individuals.
Yes
I understand that all clinical trials and any other prospective interventional studies must be registered with an ICMJE-approved registry, such as ClinicalTrials.gov. I confirm that any such study reported in the manuscript has been registered and the trial registration ID is provided (note: if posting a prospective study registered retrospectively, please provide a statement in the trial ID field explaining why the study was not registered in advance).
Yes
I have followed all appropriate research reporting guidelines, such as any relevant EQUATOR Network research reporting checklist(s) and other pertinent material, if applicable.
Yes
Data Availability
All data produced are available online at: Schmidt, Lena, 2023, “Automated data extraction of unstructured and grey literature data in health research: a mapping review of the current research literature”, https://doi.org/10.7910/DVN/7N2YWZ, Harvard Dataverse
