R/read_spreadsheet.R
read_spreadsheet.RdCurrently reads spreadsheets from Google Sheets or from xlsx, csv,
or sav files. Normally, you don't use this, but instead you
use form_fromSpreadsheet().
The URL or path to a file.
Optionally, the name(s) of the worksheet(s) to select.
Optionally, a dictionary with column names to check for presence. A named list of vectors.
If not NULL, a valid filename to write a local
backup to.
If x is a URL to a Google Sheet, instead of using
thr googlesheets4 package to download the data, by passing
exportGoogleSheet=TRUE, an export link will be produced and the data
will be downloaded as Excel spreadsheet.
Whether to return the result as a data frame if only one data frame is returned as a result.
Which package to use to work with Excel spreadsheets.
Whether to give an error when x is not a valid URL
or existing file, or just return NULL invisibly.
Whether to be silent or chatty.
A list of dataframes, or, if only one data frame was loaded and
flattenSingleDf is TRUE, a data frame.
# \donttest{
### Note that this example requires an internet connection!
read_spreadsheet(
paste0(
"https://docs.google.com/",
"spreadsheets/d/",
"1bHDzpCu4CwEa5_3_q_9vH2691XPhCS3e4Aj_HLhw_U8"
)
);
#> The value you passed as `x` (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1bHDzpCu4CwEa5_3_q_9vH2691XPhCS3e4Aj_HLhw_U8) matched the regular expression for extracting a Google Sheet identifier (^https://docs\.google\.com/spreadsheets/d/([a-zA-Z0-9_-]*)(/.*)?$), so proceeding to extract that.
#> You set `exportGoogleSheet=FALSE`, so I will download the data through the Google Sheets API.
#> ✔ Reading from
#> preregr-form-spec-inclusive-systematic-review-registration_v0-92.
#> ✔ Range ''metadata''.
#> ✔ Reading from
#> preregr-form-spec-inclusive-systematic-review-registration_v0-92.
#> ✔ Range ''instructions''.
#> ✔ Reading from
#> preregr-form-spec-inclusive-systematic-review-registration_v0-92.
#> ✔ Range ''sections''.
#> ✔ Reading from
#> preregr-form-spec-inclusive-systematic-review-registration_v0-92.
#> ✔ Range ''items''.
#> ✔ Reading from
#> preregr-form-spec-inclusive-systematic-review-registration_v0-92.
#> ✔ Range ''valueTemplates''.
#> Succesfully downloaded the data.
#> Returning result.
#> $metadata
#> field
#> 1 title
#> 2 author
#> 3 date
#> 4 comments
#> 5 version
#> content
#> 1 Inclusive Systematic Review Registration Form
#> 2 Olmo R. van den Akker, Gjalt-Jorn Ygram Peters, Caitlin Bakker, Rickard Carlsson, Nicholas Coles, Katherine S. Corker, Gilad Feldman, David Mellor, David Moreau, Thomas Nordström, Nicole Pfeiffer, Jade S. Pickering, Amy Riegelman, Marta Topor, Nieky van Veggel & Siu Kit Yeung
#> 3 1602201600
#> 4 NULL
#> 5 0.92
#>
#> $instructions
#> heading
#> 1 Intended Use
#> 2 Relation to reporting guidelines
#> 3 Instructions for effectively using the form
#> 4 Planned improvements / extensions
#> description
#> 1 This Systematic Review Registration Form is intended as a general-purpose registration form. The form is designed to be applicable to reviews across disciplines (i.e., psychology, economics, law, physics, or any other field) and across review types (i.e., scoping review, review of qualitative studies, meta-analysis, or any other type of review). That means that the reviewed records may include research reports as well as archive documents, case law, books, poems, etc. This form, therefore, is a fall-back for more specialized forms and can be used if no specialized form or registration platform is available. Below are some currently available specialized registration tools you may consider:\n\n**Specialized Registration Platforms**:\n- PROSPERO is a database of review protocols for health-related systematic reviews.\n\n**Specialized Guidance**:\n- The Non-Interventional, Reproducible, and Open (NIRO) Systematic Reviews guideline also includes fields specific to non-interventional reviews.
#> 2 Many disciplines have developed reporting guidelines for specific types of reviews (e.g., ROSES: the RepOrting standards for Systematic Evidence Syntheses in environmental research, and PRISMA: the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses). Whereas reporting guidelines were optimized for application after conclusion of a systematic review, this form was optimized to publicly register ('freeze') the research plans (or to record adjustments to research plans) before (or during) a systematic review. These different end goals resulted in different choices regarding included items. For example, this form includes a number of questions about planning that are important for a registration but typically not included in reporting guidelines.\n\nNonetheless, these reporting guidelines do partly capture the same information as registration forms. For each item in this form, we specified the corresponding PRISMA item (PRISMA items P1-P22 and P25-27 were applicable; P16-P23 cover reporting of results and P24 refers to registration forms like this). Researchers planning to use a specific reporting standard to report the results of their review, should enter the information required by that reporting standard in the corresponding (overarching) fields of this form.
#> 3 Due to the general intended use of this form, items may not be applicable to all types of reviews. Therefore, none of the items are mandatory. However, the more items you can complete in detail, the more useful your registration will be so check carefully whether you did not accidently omit an item. If an item asks about a procedure you do not plan to use or is not applicable, indicate that in the corresponding field (including, ideally, the underlying reason).\n\nYou should be transparent about any deviations from the preregistration and provide the rationale for these deviations in your final review. If you already foresee some deviations when filling out the form (e.g., you anticipate that you will not have enough studies in a moderator group), provide a contingency plan for these deviations in the relevant parts of the registration.
#> 4 The aim of this registration form is to be optimally inclusive (i.e., to be usable for registration of any systematic review, regardless of scientific discipline or review type). Because this aim precludes 1:1 correspondence with the existing reporting guidelines, this form is also intended as a basis to develop more specialized forms that do correspond closely to more specific reporting guidelines. Such specialized can include, for example, additional fields, added comments, and worked examples. Please contact the Center of Open Science at contact@cos.io if you would like to propose such a specialized version. Below you can find the currently planned improvements/extensions including contact information of the person leading the project. Please do reach out if you want to be involved in any of these projects!\n\n- A template specifically tailored to meta-analyses in the social sciences, including a tutorial and a worked example (lead: Olmo van den Akker, ovdakker@gmail.com)\n- Extend explicit linking to items in other reporting guidelines than PRISMA
#>
#> $sections
#> section_id section_label
#> 1 metadata Metadata
#> 2 methods Review methods
#> 3 search Search strategy
#> 4 screening Screening
#> 5 extraction Extraction
#> 6 synthesis Synthesis and Quality Assessment
#> section_description
#> 1 This is a special section with information that, in the OSF form, can still be updated once the registration has otherwise been frozen.
#> 2 In this section, you register the general type, background and goals of your review.
#> 3 In this section, you register your search strategy: the procedures you designed to obtain all (potentially) relevant sources to review (e.g., articles, books, preprints, reports, case law, policy papers, archived documents).
#> 4 In this section, you register your screening procedure: the procedure you designed to eliminate all irrelevant sources from the results of the search strategy (and retain the relevant sources).
#> 5 In this section, you register your plans for data extraction: the procedures you designed to extract the data you are interested in from the included sources. Examples of such data are text fragments, effect sizes, study design characteristics, year of publication, characteristics of measurement instruments, final verdicts and associated penalties in a legal system, company turnovers, sample sizes, or prevalences.
#> 6 In this section, you register the procedure for the review’s synthesis: the procedure you designed to use the data that was extracted from each source to answer your research question(s). This often includes transforming the raw extracted data, verifying validity, interpreting the results, applying predefined inference criteria, and the presentation of results. Additionally, you register the procedures you designed to assess bias in individual sources as well as the synthesis itself.
#>
#> $items
#> section_id item_id
#> 1 metadata target_discipline
#> 2 metadata title
#> 3 metadata authors
#> 4 metadata tasks_and_roles
#> 5 methods type_of_review
#> 6 methods review_stages
#> 7 methods current_stage
#> 8 methods start_date
#> 9 methods end_date
#> 10 methods background
#> 11 methods primary_research_question
#> 12 methods secondary_research_question
#> 13 methods expectations_hypotheses
#> 14 methods dvs_outcomes_main_vars
#> 15 methods ivs_intervention_treatment
#> 16 methods additional_variables
#> 17 methods software
#> 18 methods funding
#> 19 methods cois
#> 20 methods overlapping_authorships
#> 21 search databases
#> 22 search interfaces
#> 23 search grey_literature
#> 24 search inclusions_exclusion_criteria
#> 25 search query_strings
#> 26 search search_validation_procedure
#> 27 search other_search_strategies
#> 28 search procedure_for_contacting_authors
#> 29 search results_of_contacting_authors
#> 30 search search_expiration_and_repetition
#> 31 search search_strategy_justification
#> 32 search misc_search_strategy_details
#> 33 screening screening_stages
#> 34 screening screened_fields_masking
#> 35 screening used_exclusion_criteria
#> 36 screening screener_instructions
#> 37 screening screening_reliability
#> 38 screening screening_reconciliation_procedure
#> 39 screening sampling_and_sample_size
#> 40 screening screening_procedure_justification
#> 41 screening screening_data_management_and_sharing
#> 42 screening misc_screening_details
#> 43 extraction entities_to_extract
#> 44 extraction extraction_stages
#> 45 extraction extractor_instructions
#> 46 extraction extractor_blinding
#> 47 extraction extraction_reliability
#> 48 extraction extraction_reconciliation_procedure
#> 49 extraction extraction_procedure_justification
#> 50 extraction extraction_data_management_and_sharing
#> 51 extraction misc_extraction_details
#> 52 synthesis planned_data_transformations
#> 53 synthesis missing_data
#> 54 synthesis data_validation
#> 55 synthesis quality_assessment
#> 56 synthesis synthesis_plan
#> 57 synthesis criteria_for_conclusions
#> 58 synthesis synthesis_masking
#> 59 synthesis synthesis_reliability
#> 60 synthesis synthesis_reconciliation_procedure
#> 61 synthesis publication_bias
#> 62 synthesis sensitivity_analysis
#> 63 synthesis synthesis_procedure_justification
#> 64 synthesis synthesis_data_management_and_sharing
#> 65 synthesis misc_synthesis_details
#> item_label
#> 1 Target discipline
#> 2 Title
#> 3 Author(s) / contributor(s)
#> 4 Tasks and roles
#> 5 Type of review
#> 6 Review stages
#> 7 Current review stage
#> 8 Start date
#> 9 End date
#> 10 Background
#> 11 Primary research question(s)
#> 12 Secondary research question(s)
#> 13 Expectations / hypotheses
#> 14 Dependent variable(s) / outcome(s) / main variables
#> 15 Independent variable(s) / intervention(s) / treatment(s)
#> 16 Additional variable(s) / covariate(s)
#> 17 Software
#> 18 Funding
#> 19 Conflicts of interest
#> 20 Overlapping authorships
#> 21 Databases
#> 22 Interfaces
#> 23 Grey literature
#> 24 Inclusion and exclusion criteria
#> 25 Query strings
#> 26 Search validation procedure
#> 27 Other search strategies
#> 28 Procedures to contact authors
#> 29 Results of contacting authors
#> 30 Search expiration and repetition
#> 31 Search strategy justification
#> 32 Miscellaneous search strategy details
#> 33 Screening stages
#> 34 Screened fields / masking
#> 35 Used exclusion criteria
#> 36 Screener instructions
#> 37 Screening reliability
#> 38 Screening reconciliation procedure
#> 39 Sampling and sample size
#> 40 Screening procedure justification
#> 41 Data management and sharing
#> 42 Miscellaneous screening details
#> 43 Entities to extract
#> 44 Extraction stages
#> 45 Extractor instructions
#> 46 Extractor blinding
#> 47 Extraction reliability
#> 48 Extraction reconciliation procedure
#> 49 Extraction procedure justification
#> 50 Data management and sharing
#> 51 Miscellaneous extraction details
#> 52 Planned data transformations
#> 53 Missing data
#> 54 Data validation
#> 55 Quality assessment
#> 56 Synthesis plan
#> 57 Criteria for conclusions / inference criteria
#> 58 Synthesist masking
#> 59 Synthesis reliability
#> 60 Synthesis reconciliation procedure
#> 61 Publication bias analyses
#> 62 Sensitivity analyses / robustness checks
#> 63 Synthesis procedure justification
#> 64 Synthesis data management and sharing
#> 65 Miscellaneous synthesis details
#> item_description
#> 1 <NA>
#> 2 Prisma: 1.
#> 3 <NA>
#> 4 Describe the expected tasks and roles of each author/contributor, for example using the Contributor Roles Taxonomy (CRediT).
#> 5 This can be, for example, a meta-analysis, evidence map, or a qualitative review. Also indicate whether you used any guidelines, tools or checklists to prepare your protocol, and if so, which ones. PRISMA: 1.
#> 6 Indicate the stages in which you will conduct this review. Common stages are, in this order, the sections of this form (Search, Screening, Extraction, Synthesis), but sometimes other stages are distinguished, such as Preparation, Critical Appraisal, and Reporting.
#> 7 Indicate in which stage from the list you specified in the “Review stages” item you are at this moment (i.e., when you freeze this registration). Note that in many contexts, only registrations in earlier stages count as preregistrations. For example, you can use a table to indicate whether you started and/or finished with a certain stage as is customary for PROSPERO registrations.
#> 8 Indicate the planned start date, or if you already started, the actual start date.
#> 9 Indicate the planned end date, or if you already completed the review, the actual end date. You can use resources such as PredicTER.org to estimate how long a review will take to complete.
#> 10 Introduce the topic of your review, its aims, and/or provide a short summary of known literature and what your review adds to this literature. You can describe why the review is needed, as well as which reviews already exist on this or related topics. PRISMA: 2 and 3.
#> 11 List the specific questions this review is meant to answer (i.e., the questions that ultimately informed the decisions made when designing the search strategy, and screening, extraction, and synthesis plans). You may find it helpful to refer to frameworks such as PICOS where appropriate to pinpoint your research questions. Note that all analyses pertaining to primary research questions should normally be reported in the final report. Prisma: 4.
#> 12 List additional research questions that you will examine, but that took less central roles in informing the review’s design. Note that all analyses pertaining to secondary research questions should normally be reported in the final report. Prisma: 4.
#> 13 Describe any hypotheses (common for quantitative approaches) and/or expectations you have. These can pertain to your research questions, the types of sources you will find, social and political contexts, and contextual information that you know may color your interpretations and decisions (common for qualitative approaches). PRISMA: 3
#> 14 List the dependent / outcome / main variables you are interested in. If this review concerns one or more associations, list the outcome variable(s) or dependent variables. If this review does not concern one or more associations (e.g., in reviews of single variables such as prevalences, or descriptive reviews), list the main variables of interest here. PRISMA: 10a.
#> 15 If this review’s research question(s) concerns one or more associations or effects, list the variable(s) that theoretically cause them or are assumed to otherwise explain the dependent variable(s) / outcome(s). If this is a manipulation, treatment, or intervention, make sure to describe it in full: that means also describing all groups, including any control group(s) or comparator(s). PRISMA: 10b.
#> 16 Here, list any additional variables you are interested in that were not included in the two lists above, such as covariates, moderators, or mediators. PRISMA: 10b.
#> 17 List the software you will use for the review, for instance to store and screen search results, extract data, keep track of decisions, and to synthesize the results. Include version numbers and the operating systems, if applicable. PRISMA: 13d.
#> 18 List the funding sources for everybody that is involved in this review at this stage. If the work is unfunded, please state this as such. PRISMA: 25.
#> 19 List any potential conflicts of interest (e.g., if there is a potential outcome of this review that can in any way have negative or positive effects for anybody involved in this review in terms of funding, prestige, or opportunities). If there are no conflicts of interest, please state this as such. PRISMA: 16.
#> 20 Declare whether you expect that anyone involved in this review is a co-author of one of the studies that will likely be included in the review (based on your search strategy) and, if so, how you will address potential bias (i.e., that reviewer is not involved in screening, data extraction, quality assessment, or synthesis of that study). If you are confident that this does not represent a conflict of interest, explain why you think so. PRISMA: 26.
#> 21 List the databases you will search (e.g., ArXiv, PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, PsycINFO, AGRIS, BioOne, PubChem). Note that these are different from interfaces (see below and here). PRISMA: 6.
#> 22 For each database, list the interface you used to search that database (e.g., Ovid or EBSCO). Some databases are provided by the same organisation, in which case the interface can have the same name (e.g., PubMed, ArXiv). For more information about the distinction, see here. PRISMA: 6.
#> 23 List your strategies for locating grey literature (i.e., sources not indexed in the databases you search) such as pre-prints (e.g., disciplinary repositories such as ArXiv or PsyArXiv or university repositories using for example, DSpace), dissertations and theses, conference proceedings and abstracts, government/industry reports etc. PRISMA: 6.
#> 24 List the specific inclusion and exclusion criteria that you used to inform your search strategy. Also list the framework(s) you used to establish your exclusion and inclusion criteria and use them to develop your search query, if any. Examples of the latter are PICO (Population, Intervention, Comparison, Outcome) and SPIDER (Sample, Phenomenon of Interest, Design, Evaluation, Research type), but many more exist (see here for an overview based on the medical and health sciences). PRISMA: 5 and 13a.
#> 25 For each database/interface combination, list the query you will input (note that the available fields and operators can differ by database and by interface). The query string can be based on, for example, your inclusion criteria, the entities you want to extract (see “extraction”) and design requirements (e.g., qualitative studies, RCTs, or prevalence studies). PRISMA: 7.
#> 26 Explain whether you plan to employ a search validation procedure, and if so, describe the procedure. For example, you can use a number of sources that you know your search strategy will have to turn up to validate your strategy and make adjustments if needed. PRISMA: 7.
#> 27 List any additional search strategies you aim to employ, such as using the ascendancy approach (look through other sources cited in your included sources), the descendancy approach (look through the sources that cite your included sources using systems such as Crossref), or using other systems such as CoCites. PRISMA: 7.
#> 28 Describe your procedures for contacting authors. Will you contact authors? When? How will you follow-up on your first contact? Do you plan to share meta-data about those communications, and if so, how do you ask authors’ permission for that? Will you Note that templates are available at https://osf.io/q8stz/. PRISMA: 7.
#> 29 Describe whether you plan to report the outcomes of contacting the authors (e.g., how many authors responded, how many authors sent data), and if so, how. PRISMA: 16a.
#> 30 Depending on how quickly the literature in an area expands, searches can have limited expiration dates; and for living reviews, repetition is planned regardless of ideas about expiration. Will you repeat your search (for example, in the case of a living review), and if so, how many months or years after your first search? PRISMA: 7.
#> 31 Search strategies are often compromises, balancing pragmatic considerations with scientific rigour. Here, describe the justifications for your decisions about the databases, interfaces, grey literature strategies, query strings, author contact procedures, and search expiration date. PRISMA: 7.
#> 32 Here, you can describe any details that are not captured in the other fields in this section. PRISMA: 7.
#> 33 Describe the stages you will use for screening. For example, if you expect many hits, you may want to first screen based on titles only, in a second round also include abstracts and keywords, and in a third round screen based on full texts. Also indicate for each round whether the screening is done by a computer (e.g., AI), a human, or a computer supervised by a human. Don’t forget to describe the deduplication procedure, if you implement it. PRISMA: 8.
#> 34 Describe which bibliographic fields (e.g., title, abstract, authors) are visible during the screening, and which fields are masked. For example, journal names, authors, and publication years can be hidden from screeners in an effort to minimize bias. PRISMA: 8.
#> 35 List the specific exclusion criteria that you apply in your screening to eliminate sources from the set of sources identified in your search. Note that inclusion criteria are typically used to inform the search strategy; during screening, as soon as an exclusion criterion is met, an entry is excluded, and so, inclusion criteria are reformulated into exclusion criteria where applicable. PRISMA: 8.
#> 36 List or upload the instructions provided to the screener(s). PRISMA: 8.
#> 37 For each screening round, list the number of screeners and the procedure used to ensure independent screening.This can also mean that you declare that you only use one screener, use multiple screeners that work together, or that you will not implement procedures to ensure that the screening is conducted independently. Also explain the test you will use, if any, to assess screener agreement. PRISMA: 8.
#> 38 If you use more than one screener, describe the procedure to deal with divergent screener decisions for each screener round (e.g., through discussion or input from an additional screener). PRISMA: 8.
#> 39 Describe whether you plan to use all sources included through the screening procedure, or whether you plan to sample from these sources (note that in most cases, all studies identified at this stage are kept). In case of the latter, describe the procedure you plan to use, the sample size analyses you conducted or will conduct, and the resulting required sample size if that is already available. If you plan to refrain from drawing conclusions, or draw more nuanced conclusions, describe that here as well. Finally, describe what you will do if a minimum required sample size or power is not reached (for your main analysis and any supplementary analyses). PRISMA: 8.
#> 40 Screening procedures are often compromises, balancing pragmatic considerations with scientific rigour. Here, describe the justifications for your decisions about the screening rounds, blinding, in/exclusion criteria, assurance, and reconciliation procedures. PRISMA: 8.
#> 41 Describe whether and how you plan to share the sources you obtained from the searches in the databases (see Search Strategy) and the decisions each screener made in each screening round. List both the file format (e.g., BibTeX, RIS, CSV, XLSX), the repository, and any potential embargos or conditions for access. PRISMA: 27.
#> 42 Here, you can describe any details that are not captured in the other fields in this section. PRISMA: 8.
#> 43 List all entities that will be extracted from each included source. Entities can be, for example, 1) variables such as values of independent and dependent variables, and potential moderators (e.g., means, standard deviations); 2) estimations of associations between variables or effect sizes (e.g., Pearson’s r or Cohen’s d); 3) qualitative data fragments; 4) descriptions of the used methods such as the included studies’ designs, sample sizes, sample characteristics, time between data collection sessions, and blinding procedures; 5) metadata such as authors, institutions, and year of publication; 6) and (other) risk of bias indicators. PRISMA: 10a, 10b, and 12.
#> 44 Describe the stages you will use for extraction. Examples of stages are: a training stage, a reliability verification stage, and a final extraction stage; or first extracting primary data and in a second stage risk of bias information; or two extractors working sequentially or in parallel. Also indicate for each stage whether the extraction is done by a computer (e.g., AI), a human, or a computer supervised by a human. PRISMA: 9.
#> 45 List or upload the instructions provided to the extractors (i.e., those performing the data extraction). PRISMA: 9.
#> 46 If blinding is used, describe the procedure used to blind extractors from the research questions, hypotheses, and/or specific roles of each entity to extract in this review. For example, extractors can be research assistants who are not informed of the study’s background or research questions, but who are trained to extract entities using the coding instructions you developed for each entity; or entity extraction can be crowdsourced to citizen scientists. PRISMA: 9.
#> 47 For each extraction round, list the number of extractors and the procedure used to ensure independent extraction (this can also mean that you declare that you use one extractor, or will not implement procedures to ensure that the extractions are conducted independently). Also explain the test you will use, if any, to assess extractor agreement. PRISMA: 9.
#> 48 For each extraction round, describe the procedure to deal with divergent extraction decisions (if applicable, i.e., if you use more than one extractor). PRISMA: 9.
#> 49 Extraction procedures are often compromises, balancing pragmatic considerations with scientific rigour. Here, describe the justifications for your decisions about the justification of each entity that will be extracted, the extraction rounds, reliability assurance, and reconciliation procedures. PRISMA: 9.
#> 50 Describe whether and how you will share the files with the extracted entities (as specified in the corresponding field above; i.e., everything extracted from every source, including metadata, method characteristics, variables, associations, etc). List both the file format (e.g., CSV, XLSX, RData), the repository, and any potential embargos or conditions for access. Describe efforts made to share FAIR, 5-star open data, if any such efforts will be made. PRISMA: 27.
#> 51 Here, you can describe any details that are not captured in the other fields in this section. PRISMA: 9.
#> 52 Describe your plans for transforming the raw extracted data. This may include converting effect sizes to other metrics (e.g., convert all metrics to Pearson correlation coefficients); recoding or (re)categorizing extracted qualitative data fragments (e.g., coding extracted music genres within an existing taxonomy); and aggregating extracted data prior to the main synthesis procedures (e.g., compute the mean of a variable over all samples in one source). Applying these transformations to the raw extracted entities from the Extraction section should yield data that corresponds to the variables of interest listed in the Review Methods section. PRISMA: 13b.
#> 53 Describe how you will deal with missing data (i.e., cases where it is not possible to extract one or more entities from the source material, and your efforts to obtain the missing information, for example by contacting the authors, are not fruitful). PRISMA: 10b.
#> 54 Describe your process of ensuring that the data are correct and useful (e.g., identifying outliers, identifying retractions, or triangulating with other sources). Also describe your criteria for assessing data validity and how you will deal with data violating those criteria. PRISMA: 10b.
#> 55 Describe the analyses you plan to do to assess and weigh the quality of the included sources with respect to your research question(s). Examples of tools to use for quality evaluation are Cochrane’s Risk of Bias tool and GRADE. PRISMA: 11.
#> 56 Describe the specific procedure you will apply to arrive at an answer to the research question(s). For example, in meta-analyses this is the full analysis plan, including any planned subgroup analyses and moderator analyses, the (multilevel) model specification, and preferably the analysis code. For a qualitative review, it is the procedure you plan to use to collate your results into a coherent picture. If you distinguish synthesis tiers (e.g., primary and secondary analysis, or confirmatory and exploratory analyses), list them and indicate which procedures you plan to use for each. Also specify what you will do if parts of the plan can’t be properly executed. PRISMA: 13c, 13d, and 13e.
#> 57 If you plan to draw your conclusions based on pre-specified criteria (e.g., a minimal effect size of interest, a significance level, or a saturation point), list these here. PRISMA: 20b.
#> 58 Describe the procedure, if any, used to mask synthesists (i.e., the persons synthesizing the extracted data to arrive at answers to your research question(s)) from the research questions, hypotheses, and/or specific roles of each extracted entity/variable in this review. For example, for meta-analyses, an analyst external to the main research team can be engaged to perform the analyses without knowing the study’s hypotheses. For qualitative reviews, for the synthesis, other researchers can be involved who are unaware of and are not informed about the research process and expectations. PRISMA: 13d.
#> 59 List the number of synthesists and the procedure used to ensure independent synthesis (this can also mean that you declare that you use one synthesist, or will not implement procedures to ensure that the syntheses are conducted independently). PRISMA: 13d.
#> 60 Describe the procedure to deal with divergent synthesis decisions (if applicable). PRISMA: 13d.
#> 61 Describe the analyses you plan to do to assess publication bias (if any). For an overview of commonly used publication bias correction methods, see Table 1 in Van Aert, Wicherts, & Van Assen (2019) PRISMA: 14.
#> 62 Describe the sensitivity analyses or robustness checks you plan to conduct (if any). PRISMA: 13f and 15.
#> 63 Extraction procedures are sometimes compromises, balancing pragmatic considerations with scientific rigour. Here, describe the justifications for your decisions about your planned transformations (e.g., if based on assumptions, how do you know those are feasible), your data integrity and missing data checks and corrections, your synthesis plan, the criteria you chose to drive your conclusions/inferences (if any), and your procedures for blinding, and reliability assurance/reconciliation if you use multiple synthesists. PRISMA: 13d.
#> 64 Describe whether and how you will share the files with the analysis scripts, notes, and outputs. List both the file format (e.g., R scripts, RMarkdown files, plain text files, Open Document files), the repository, and any potential embargos or conditions for access. See https://osf.io/5nk92 for a generic example of an analysis script. PRISMA: 27.
#> 65 Here, you can describe any details that are not captured in the other fields in this section. PRISMA: 13d.
#> item_valueTemplate item_validValues item_validation
#> 1 string NA NA
#> 2 string NA NA
#> 3 string NA NA
#> 4 string NA NA
#> 5 string NA NA
#> 6 string NA NA
#> 7 string NA NA
#> 8 date NA NA
#> 9 date NA NA
#> 10 string NA NA
#> 11 string NA NA
#> 12 string NA NA
#> 13 string NA NA
#> 14 string NA NA
#> 15 string NA NA
#> 16 string NA NA
#> 17 string NA NA
#> 18 string NA NA
#> 19 string NA NA
#> 20 string NA NA
#> 21 string NA NA
#> 22 string NA NA
#> 23 string NA NA
#> 24 string NA NA
#> 25 string NA NA
#> 26 string NA NA
#> 27 string NA NA
#> 28 string NA NA
#> 29 string NA NA
#> 30 string NA NA
#> 31 string NA NA
#> 32 string NA NA
#> 33 string NA NA
#> 34 string NA NA
#> 35 string NA NA
#> 36 string NA NA
#> 37 string NA NA
#> 38 string NA NA
#> 39 string NA NA
#> 40 string NA NA
#> 41 string NA NA
#> 42 string NA NA
#> 43 string NA NA
#> 44 string NA NA
#> 45 string NA NA
#> 46 string NA NA
#> 47 string NA NA
#> 48 string NA NA
#> 49 string NA NA
#> 50 string NA NA
#> 51 string NA NA
#> 52 string NA NA
#> 53 string NA NA
#> 54 string NA NA
#> 55 string NA NA
#> 56 string NA NA
#> 57 string NA NA
#> 58 string NA NA
#> 59 string NA NA
#> 60 string NA NA
#> 61 string NA NA
#> 62 string NA NA
#> 63 string NA NA
#> 64 string NA NA
#> 65 string NA NA
#>
#> $valueTemplates
#> identifier
#> 1 numeric
#> 2 integer
#> 3 string
#> 4 identifier
#> 5 countrycode
#> 6 categorical
#> 7 date
#> 8 string_mandatory
#> description
#> 1 Any valid number
#> 2 Any valid whole number
#> 3 A single character value
#> 4 A single character value that must start with a letter and can only contain alphanumeric characters and underscores
#> 5 An ISO 3166-1 alpha-2 country code
#> 6 A string that has to exactly match one of the values specified in the "items_validValues" column of the items sheet
#> 7 An ISO 8601 date.
#> 8 A single character value that cannot be empty
#> validValues default examples
#> 1 NA NA 2.3 || 643.2
#> 2 NA NA 30 || 8762
#> 3 NA "" "Example" || "Another example"
#> 4 NA "" "example1" || "example_2"
#> 5 NA NA "NL" || "HU"
#> 6 NA NA {{validValues}}
#> 7 NA NA 2021-03-03
#> 8 NA "" "Example" || "Another example"
#> validation
#> 1 is.na(VALUE) || (is.numeric(VALUE) && (length(VALUE) == 1))
#> 2 is.na(VALUE) || (is.numeric(VALUE) && (VALUE%%1==0) && (length(VALUE) == 1))
#> 3 is.na(VALUE) || (is.character(VALUE) && length(VALUE) == 1)
#> 4 grepl("[A-Za-z][A-Za-z0-9_]*", VALUE)
#> 5 is.na(VALUE) || (VALUE %in% countryCodeList())
#> 6 is.na(VALUE) || (VALUE %in% {{validValues}})
#> 7 grepl("^[0-9]{4}-[0-9]{2}-[0-9]{2}$", VALUE)
#> 8 (is.character(VALUE) && length(VALUE) == 1)
#> error
#> 1 NAME is not numeric, or contains more than one value.
#> 2 Error about NAME here.
#> 3 Error about NAME here.
#> 4 Identifiers must start with a letter and consist only of alphanumeric characters and underscores.
#> 5 Error about NAME here.
#> 6 Error about NAME here.
#> 7 The specified date does not conform to the ISO 8601 standard (YYYY-MM-DD).
#> 8 Error about NAME here.
#>
# }