The DOI matches its Crossref record; 40 of the 40 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.
An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview
Open accessAbstract
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.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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 source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“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
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe check wasn’t confident either way, so it gives no verdict — never disputed.
In the citing paper
“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]
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.
Citations
Cites
Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C. M., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2015) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1097/xeb.0000000000000055 · Cited by 2,587
Stewart, L. A., Clarke, M., Rovers, M., Riley, R. D., Simmonds, M., Stewart, G., & Tierney, J. F. (2015) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2015.3656 · Cited by 2,134
Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions
Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/1471-2288-11-15 · Cited by 1,227
The Salmeterol Multicenter Asthma Research Trial
Nelson, H. S., Weiss, S. T., Bleecker, E. R., Yancey, S. W., & Dorinsky, P. (2006) · CHEST Journal · doi:10.1378/chest.129.1.15 · Cited by 1,112
Sedentary behavior and health outcomes: an overview of systematic reviews.
Rezende, L. F. M. D., Rodrigues Lopes, M., Rey-López, J. P., Matsudo, V. K. R., & Luiz, O. D. C. (2014) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0105620 · Cited by 965
Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke
Pollock, A., Farmer, S. E., Brady, M. C., Langhorne, P., Mead, G. E., Mehrholz, J., & van Wijck, F. (2014) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd010820.pub2 · Cited by 909
Self-citationChapter 12: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions
Schünemann, H. J., Oxman, A. D., Jonathan, J., & Glasziou, P. (2011) · Cited by 873
Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature
Kyrgiou, M., Kalliala, I., Markozannes, G., Gunter, M. J., Paraskevaidis, E., Gabra, H., Martin-Hirsch, P., & Tsilidis, K. K. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j477 · Cited by 803
Evidence for Health Decision Making — Beyond Randomized, Controlled Trials
Frieden, T. R. (2017) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmra1614394 · Cited by 770
Page, M. J., Shamseer, L., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Sampson, M., Tricco, A. C., Catalá-López, F., Li, L., Reid, E. K., Sarkis-Onofre, R., et al. (2016) · PLOS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028 · Cited by 768
Research works printed but not linked: 6
- 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.
- Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium: Filtering the information overload for better decisions. Vienna: Wiley; 2015.
- Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. Birmingham: UK and Ireland Cochrane Symposium; 2016.
- Brunton G, et al. Developing evidence-informed, employer-led workplace health. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London; 2016.
- 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.
- INVOLVE Exploring the impact of public involvement on the quality of research: examples. 2013.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Gates, M., Gates, A., Pieper, D., Fernandes, R. M., Tricco, A. C., Moher, D., Brennan, S. E., Li, T., Pollock, M., Lunny, C., et al. (2022) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2022-070849 · Cited by 856
Sedentary behaviour and health in adults: an overview of systematic reviews
Saunders, T. J., McIsaac, T., Douillette, K., Gaulton, N., Hunter, S., Rhodes, R. E., Prince, S. A., Carson, V., Chaput, J., CHASTIN, S. F. M., et al. (2020) · Applied Physiology, Nutrition, and Metabolism · doi:10.1139/apnm-2020-0272 · Cited by 518
Montazeri, A., Mohammadi, S., M.Hesari, P., Ghaemi, M., Riazi, H., & Sheikhi-Mobarakeh, Z. (2023) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-023-02410-2 · Cited by 433
The clinical effectiveness of telehealth: A systematic review of meta-analyses from 2010 to 2019
Snoswell, C. L., Chelberg, G., De Guzman, K. R., Haydon, H. M., Thomas, E. E., Caffery, L. J., & Smith, A. C. (2023) · Journal of Telemedicine and Telecare · doi:10.1177/1357633x211022907 · Cited by 397
Missed nursing care: An overview of reviews
Chaboyer, W. P., Harbeck, E., Lee, B., & Grealish, L. A. (2020) · The Kaohsiung Journal of Medical Sciences · doi:10.1002/kjm2.12308 · Cited by 437
Metadata
- 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
- Venue
- Systematic Reviews
- Published
- 2018-03-01
- Volume
- 7
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 39-39
- ISSN
- 2046-4053 (ISSN-L)
- 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
- FWCI
- 22.69
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- 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
