The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

Case series Knowledge synthesis Overview of reviews Systematic review

Journal

Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
11 01 2019
Historique:
received: 16 01 2018
accepted: 09 12 2018
entrez: 13 1 2019
pubmed: 13 1 2019
medline: 3 4 2020
Statut: epublish

Résumé

Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Overviews may identify multiple SRs that examine the same intervention for the same condition and include some, but not all, of the same primary studies. There is currently limited guidance on whether and how to include these overlapping SRs in overviews. Our objectives were to assess how different inclusion decisions in overviews of healthcare interventions affect their comprehensiveness and results, and document challenges encountered when making different inclusion decisions in overviews. We used five inclusion decisions to conduct overviews across seven topic areas, resulting in 35 overviews. The inclusion decisions were (1) include all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, (2) include only Cochrane SRs, or consider all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but include only non-overlapping SRs, and in the case of overlapping SRs, select (3) the Cochrane SR, (4) the most recent SR (by publication or search date), or (5) the highest quality SR (assessed using AMSTAR). For each topic area and inclusion scenario, we documented the amount of outcome data lost and changed and the challenges involved. When conducting overviews, including only Cochrane SRs, instead of all SRs, often led to loss/change of outcome data (median 31% of outcomes lost/changed; range 0-100%). Considering all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but including only non-overlapping SRs and selecting the Cochrane SR for groups of overlapping SRs (instead of the most recent or highest quality SRs) allowed the most outcome data to be recaptured (median 42% of lost/changed outcome recaptured; range 28-86%). Across all inclusion scenarios, challenges were encountered when extracting data from overlapping SRs. Overlapping SRs present a methodological challenge for overview authors. This study demonstrates that different inclusion decisions affect the comprehensiveness and results of overviews in different ways, depending in part on whether Cochrane SRs examine all intervention comparisons relevant to the overview. Study results were used to develop an evidence-based decision tool that provides practical guidance for overview authors.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND
Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Overviews may identify multiple SRs that examine the same intervention for the same condition and include some, but not all, of the same primary studies. There is currently limited guidance on whether and how to include these overlapping SRs in overviews. Our objectives were to assess how different inclusion decisions in overviews of healthcare interventions affect their comprehensiveness and results, and document challenges encountered when making different inclusion decisions in overviews.
METHODS
We used five inclusion decisions to conduct overviews across seven topic areas, resulting in 35 overviews. The inclusion decisions were (1) include all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, (2) include only Cochrane SRs, or consider all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but include only non-overlapping SRs, and in the case of overlapping SRs, select (3) the Cochrane SR, (4) the most recent SR (by publication or search date), or (5) the highest quality SR (assessed using AMSTAR). For each topic area and inclusion scenario, we documented the amount of outcome data lost and changed and the challenges involved.
RESULTS
When conducting overviews, including only Cochrane SRs, instead of all SRs, often led to loss/change of outcome data (median 31% of outcomes lost/changed; range 0-100%). Considering all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but including only non-overlapping SRs and selecting the Cochrane SR for groups of overlapping SRs (instead of the most recent or highest quality SRs) allowed the most outcome data to be recaptured (median 42% of lost/changed outcome recaptured; range 28-86%). Across all inclusion scenarios, challenges were encountered when extracting data from overlapping SRs.
CONCLUSIONS
Overlapping SRs present a methodological challenge for overview authors. This study demonstrates that different inclusion decisions affect the comprehensiveness and results of overviews in different ways, depending in part on whether Cochrane SRs examine all intervention comparisons relevant to the overview. Study results were used to develop an evidence-based decision tool that provides practical guidance for overview authors.

Identifiants

pubmed: 30635048
doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3
pii: 10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3
pmc: PMC6329144
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

18

Subventions

Organisme : CIHR
ID : 119373
Pays : Canada

Références

Am Psychol. 2012 Sep;67(6):446-62
pubmed: 22352742
PLoS Med. 2016 May 24;13(5):e1002028
pubmed: 27218655
Evid Based Child Health. 2013 Jan;8(1):3-10
pubmed: 23878121
BMC Med. 2011 Mar 30;9:30
pubmed: 21450083
Evid Based Child Health. 2013 Jul;8(4):1123-37
pubmed: 23877938
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007 Feb 15;7:10
pubmed: 17302989
J Clin Epidemiol. 2009 Apr;62(4):380-386.e1
pubmed: 19128940
Res Synth Methods. 2017 Mar;8(1):92-108
pubmed: 28074553
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Apr;67(4):368-75
pubmed: 24581293
Allergy. 2017 Feb;72(2):183-200
pubmed: 27588581
Syst Rev. 2016 Nov 14;5(1):190
pubmed: 27842604
Acad Emerg Med. 2016 May;23(5):519-30
pubmed: 26858095
CMAJ. 1997 May 15;156(10):1411-6
pubmed: 9164400
Evid Based Child Health. 2011 Sep;6(5):1322-1339
pubmed: 22822349
Syst Rev. 2017 Jul 18;6(1):145
pubmed: 28720141

Auteurs

Michelle Pollock (M)

Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Ricardo M Fernandes (RM)

Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Department of Pediatrics, Santa Maria Hospital, Lisbon, Portugal.

Amanda S Newton (AS)

Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Shannon D Scott (SD)

Faculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.

Lisa Hartling (L)

Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. hartling@ualberta.ca.
4-472 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405 87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G-1C9, Canada. hartling@ualberta.ca.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH