CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 314Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview

Open access
Hunt, Harriet, Pollock, Alex, Campbell, Pauline, Estcourt, Lise, Brunton, Ginny·2018·Systematic Reviews
DOI 10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8PMC PMC5831229
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

BACKGROUND: Overviews of systematic reviews are a relatively new approach to synthesising evidence, and research methods and associated guidance are developing. Within this paper we aim to help readers understand key issues which are essential to consider when taking the first steps in planning an overview. These issues relate to the development of clear, relevant research questions and objectives prior to the development of an overview protocol. METHODS: Initial discussions and key concepts for this paper were formed during a workshop on overview methods at the 2016 UK Cochrane Symposium, at which all members of this author group presented work and contributed to wider discussions. Detailed descriptions of the various key features of overviews and their different objectives were created by the author group based upon current evidence (Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook Syst Rev Interv. 2011;4:5, Pollock M, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:190-205, Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. UK and Ireland: Cochrane Symposium; 2016, Pieper D, et al. Res Syn Meth. 2014;5:187-99, Lunny C, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:4-12, Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium; 2015, Hartling L, et al. Plos One. 2012;7:1-8, Ballard M, Montgomery P. Res Syn Meth. 2017;8:92-108) and author experiences conducting overviews. RESULTS: Within this paper we introduce different types of overviews and suggest common research questions addressed by these overviews. We briefly reflect on the key features and objectives of the example overviews discussed. CONCLUSIONS: Clear decisions relating to the research questions and objectives are a fundamental first step during the initial planning stages for an overview. Key stakeholders should be involved at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the planned overview is relevant and meaningful to the potential end users of the overview. Following best practice in common with other forms of systematic evidence synthesis, an overview protocol should be published, ensuring transparency and reducing opportunities for introduction of bias in the conduct of the 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 · 10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8

Cites

40 of 40 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?

  • The review followed recommended practice including a published protocol with predefined inclusion criteria, standardised data extraction, description of overlap, estimations of common effect sizes where applicable, and assessments of study quality and heterogeneity.

    “We also followed recommended practice which include the following features: a published protocol with predefined inclusion criteria; a standardised data extraction technique; a description of any overlap in meta-analyses of the same outcomes; estimations of common effect sizes where applicable; and assessments of study quality and heterogeneity (Aromataris et al., 2015; Fusar-Poli and Radua, 2018;”

    From The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as Hunt et al., 2018

    The Results and Discussion section (page not available) says an overview’s scope is defined by previously stated inclusion and exclusion criteria and that plans for data analysis should be specified. It also discusses heterogeneity as a challenge. It does not recommend the full listed set of practices, including a published protocol, standardised extraction, descriptions of overlap, common effect-size estimates, or quality assessments. (LLM, conf=0.84)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The quality of selected studies was assessed using the CASP Systematic Review Checklist.

    “The quality of the selected studies was assessed using the Critical Appraisal Skills Program (CASP) for review articles (CASP Systematic Review Checklist). 21”

    From Artificial Intelligence and Decision-Making in Healthcare: A Thematic Analysis of a Systematic Review of Reviews (2024) · cites this paper as [21]

    The supplied passages are from the References section, and searches of the paper's full-text copy for CASP, the Systematic Review Checklist, and quality assessment of selected reviews found no passage addressing this claim. The copy therefore does not establish that the selected studies were assessed using CASP. (LLM, conf=0.74)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

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: 4

  1. [7]Becker, L. and A. Oxman, Chapter 22: Overviews of reviews., in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 H. JPT and G. S, Editors. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration.
  2. [14]Hartling L Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium: Filtering the information overload for better decisions 2015 Vienna Wiley
  3. [18]Pollock A Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges 2016 Birmingham UK and Ireland Cochrane Symposium
  4. [37]Hunt, H., E. Kuzma, and H. C, A review of existing systematic reviews summarising the accuracy of brief cognitive assessments for identifying dementia, particularly for use in primary care. Protocol., in PROSPERO 2016: PROSPERO online.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hunt, H., Pollock, A., Campbell, P., Estcourt, L., & Brunton, G.
Affiliations
  • University of Exeter (GB)
  • Glasgow Caledonian University (GB)
  • John Radcliffe Hospital (GB)
  • University College London (GB)
Corresponding author
Hunt, Harriet
ORCID
Venue
Systematic Reviews
Publisher
Springer Science and Business Media LLC
Published
2018-03-01
Volume
7
Issue
1
Pages
39-39
ISSN
2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8
PMC
PMC5831229
OpenAlex
W2792896018
Cited by
314
References
40
Citations by year
2026: 15 · 2025: 27 · 2024: 44 · 2023: 63 · 2022: 44 · 2021: 52 · 2020: 45 · 2019: 17 · 2018: 5 · 2013: 1
FWCI
22.69
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
cc-by
Locations
  • Systematic Reviews (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • ResearchOnline (Glasgow Caledonian University) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
  • Figshare (submittedVersion)
  • Open Research Exeter (University of Exeter) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
Funders
NIHR PenCLAHRC
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, research question formulation, stakeholder engagement, transparency, bias mitigation
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Research Design

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