CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 348Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsscientometrics and bibliometrics researchPsychology Research and Bibliometrics

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 38 of the 38 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Examining overlap of included studies in meta‐reviews: Guidance for using the corrected covered area index

Open access
Hennessy, Emily A., Johnson, Blair T.·2020·Research Synthesis Methods
DOI 10.1002/jrsm.1390PMC PMC8555740
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Overlap in meta‐reviews results from the use of multiple identical primary studies in similar reviews. It is an important area for research synthesists because overlap indicates the degree to which reviews address the same or different literatures of primary research. Current guidelines to address overlap suggest that assessing and documenting the degree of overlap in primary studies, calculated via the corrected covered area (CCA) is a promising method. Yet, the CCA is a simple percentage of overlap and current guidelines do not detail ways that reviewers can use the CCA as a diagnostic tool while also comprehensively incorporating these findings into their conclusions. Furthermore, we maintain that meta‐review teams must address non‐independence via overlap more thoroughly than by simply estimating and reporting the CCA. Instead, we recommend and elaborate five steps to take when examining overlap, illustrating these steps through the use of an empirical example of primary study overlap in a recently conducted meta‐review. This work helps to show that overlap of primary studies included in a meta‐review is not necessarily a bias but often can be a benefit. We also highlight further areas of caution in this task and potential for the development of new tools to address non‐independence issues.

Overview

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1002/jrsm.1390

Cites

38 of 38 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Verification

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Show all 36 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 301–347 of 347

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hennessy, E. A., & Johnson, B. T.
Affiliations
University of Connecticut (US)
Corresponding author
Hennessy, Emily A.
ORCID
Venue
Research Synthesis Methods
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2019-12-10
Volume
11
Issue
1
Pages
134-145
ISSN
  • 1759-2879 (ISSN-L)
  • 1759-2887
DOI
10.1002/jrsm.1390
PMC
PMC8555740
OpenAlex
W2996727926
Cited by
348
References
36
Citations by year
2026: 99 · 2025: 95 · 2024: 61 · 2023: 54 · 2022: 18 · 2021: 13 · 2020: 5 · 2019: 1
FWCI
6.18
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
onlinelibrary.wiley.com/termsAndConditions#vor (vor)
Locations
  • Research Synthesis Methods (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Aging (5U24AG052175)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Library and Information Sciences › scientometrics and bibliometrics research
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Experimental and Cognitive Psychology › Psychology Research and Bibliometrics
Keywords
meta-review, non-independence, evidence synthesis
MeSH terms
Abstracting and Indexing, Systematic Reviews as Topic, Algorithms, Blood Pressure, Decision Trees, Humans, Research Design, Meta-Analysis as Topic, Bias, Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review