Cited by 195Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary

Open access
Pollock, Michelle, Fernandes, Ricardo M., Becker, Lorne A., Featherstone, Robin, Hartling, Lisa·2016·Systematic Reviews

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile data from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there is limited methodological guidance available for researchers wishing to conduct overviews. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and collate all published and unpublished documents containing guidance for conducting overviews examining the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of healthcare interventions. Our aims were to provide a map of existing guidance documents; identify similarities, differences, and gaps in the guidance contained within these documents; and identify common challenges involved in conducting overviews. METHODS: We conducted an iterative and extensive search to ensure breadth and comprehensiveness of coverage. The search involved reference tracking, database and web searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, Scopus, Cochrane Methods Studies Database, Google Scholar), handsearching of websites and conference proceedings, and contacting overview producers. Relevant guidance statements and challenges encountered were extracted, edited, grouped, abstracted, and presented using a qualitative metasummary approach. RESULTS: We identified 52 guidance documents produced by 19 research groups. Relatively consistent guidance was available for the first stages of the overview process (deciding when and why to conduct an overview, specifying the scope, and searching for and including systematic reviews). In contrast, there was limited or conflicting guidance for the latter stages of the overview process (quality assessment of systematic reviews and their primary studies, collecting and analyzing data, and assessing quality of evidence), and many of the challenges identified were also related to these stages. An additional, overarching challenge identified was that overviews are limited by the methods, reporting, and coverage of their included systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: This compilation of methodological guidance for conducting overviews of healthcare interventions will facilitate the production of future overviews and can help authors address key challenges they are likely to encounter. The results of this project have been used to identify areas where future methodological research is required to generate empirical evidence for overview methods. Additionally, these results have been used to update the chapter on overviews in the next edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

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 · 10.1186/s13643-016-0367-5

Cites

29 of 29 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 9

  1. [3]Becker LA, Oxman AD. Chapter 22: overviews of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. www.handbook.cochrane.org.
  2. [11]Grimshaw J. A knowledge synthesis chapter. In: A guide to knowledge synthesis. Canadian Institutes of Health Research; 2010. http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/41382.html. Accessed 30 Nov 2015
  3. [13]Foisy M Dryden DM Fernandes RM Hartling L Thomson D Advancing methods for overviews of reviews: a discussion of challenges and potential solutions. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium, 21-26 Sept 2014 2014 Hyderabad Wiley
  4. [24]Foisy M Dryden DM Fernandes RM Hartling L Multiple systematic reviews published on the same topic area: an analysis of systematic reviews that overlap in content. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium, 21-26 Sep 2014 2014 Hyderabad Wiley
  5. [25]Green S, Higgins JPT. Chapter 2: preparing a Cochrane review. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions (version 5.1.0). The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. www.handbook.cochrane.org.
  6. [31]Foisy M Hartling L Challenges and considerations involved in using AMSTAR in overviews of reviews. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium, 21-26 Sep 2014 2014 Hyderabad Wiley
  7. [32]Jia P Chen J Zhang L Zhao P Zhang M Challenges and considerations in assessing the reporting quality of systematic reviews in overviews using PRISMA. Abstracts of the 23rd Cochrane Colloquium, 03-07 Oct 2015 2015 Vienna Wiley
  8. [35]Foisy M Fernandes RM Dryden DM Hartling L Grading the quality of evidence in existing systematic reviews: challenges and considerations. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium, 21-26 Sep 2014 2014 Hyderabad Wiley
  9. [39]Cochrane: Special collection: Cochrane overviews. http://www.cochranelibrary.com/app/content/special-collections/article/?doi=10.1002/(ISSN)14651858(CAT)na(VI)SC000036 (2014). Accessed 30 Nov 2015. · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., Becker, L. A., Featherstone, R., & Hartling, L.
Affiliations
  • University of Alberta (CA)
  • University of Lisbon (PT)
  • SUNY Upstate Medical University (US)
Corresponding author
Hartling, Lisa
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Published
2016-11-14
Volume
5
Issue
1
Pages
190-190
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2556359523
Cited by
195
References
29
Citations by year
2026: 9 · 2025: 13 · 2024: 21 · 2023: 22 · 2022: 26 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 21 · 2018: 14 · 2017: 11 · 2013: 1
FWCI
5.26
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (119373)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
overviews of reviews, methodological recommendations, health interventions, evidence synthesis, quality of evidence, research methodology challenges
MeSH terms
Humans, Publications, Research Design, Research Personnel, Review Literature as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine

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