Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

被引:84
作者
Pollock, Alex [1 ]
Campbell, Pauline [1 ]
Brunton, Ginny [2 ]
Hunt, Harriet [3 ]
Estcourt, Lise [4 ,5 ]
机构
[1] Glasgow Caledonian Univ, Res Unit, Nursing Midwifery & Allied Hlth Profess NMAHP Res, 6th Floor,Govan Mbeki Bldg,Cowcaddens Rd, Glasgow G4 0BA, Lanark, Scotland
[2] UCL, UCL Inst Educ, 20 Bedford Way, London WC1H 0AL, England
[3] Univ Exeter, Med Sch, St Lukes Campus, Exeter EX1 1TE, Devon, England
[4] Univ Oxford, John Radcliffe Hosp, NHS Blood & Transplant Oxford, Level 2, Oxford OX3 9BQ, England
[5] Univ Oxford, John Radcliffe Hosp, Radcliffe Dept Med, Level 2, Oxford OX3 9BQ, England
关键词
Challenges; Methods; Overviews; Quality assessment; Synthesis; ASSIGN GRADE LEVELS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; CONDUCTING OVERVIEWS; QUALITY; TOOL; INTERVENTIONS; LIMITATIONS; ALGORITHM; GUIDANCE; AMSTAR;
D O I
10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3
中图分类号
R5 [内科学];
学科分类号
100201 [内科学];
摘要
Background: Overviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed. Methods: Methods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus. Results: Methodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews. Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified. Conclusions: Overviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.
引用
收藏
页数:18
相关论文
共 59 条
[1]
[Anonymous], PREFERRED REPORTING
[2]
[Anonymous], 2006, The guidelines manual
[3]
[Anonymous], PUBL INV SYST REV S
[4]
Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach [J].
Aromataris, Edoardo ;
Fernandez, Ritin ;
Godfrey, Christina M. ;
Holly, Cheryl ;
Khalil, Hanan ;
Tungpunkom, Patraporn .
INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF EVIDENCE-BASED HEALTHCARE, 2015, 13 (03) :132-140
[5]
Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist [J].
Ballard, Madeleine ;
Montgomery, Paul .
RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2017, 8 (01) :92-108
[6]
'Talking the talk or walking the walk?' A bibliometric review of the literature on public involvement in health research published between 1995 and 2009 [J].
Boote, Jonathan ;
Wong, Ruth ;
Booth, Andrew .
HEALTH EXPECTATIONS, 2015, 18 (01) :44-57
[7]
Towards complete and accurate reporting of studies of diagnostic accuracy: The STARD initiative [J].
Bossuyt, PM ;
Reitsma, JB ;
Bruns, DE ;
Gatsonis, CA ;
Glasziou, PP ;
Irwig, LM ;
Lijmer, JG ;
Moher, D ;
Rennie, D ;
de Vet, HCW .
ANNALS OF INTERNAL MEDICINE, 2003, 138 (01) :40-44
[8]
Brunton G, 2016, DEV EVIDENCE INFORM
[9]
Burda BU, 2016, SYST REV-LONDON, V5, DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0237-1
[10]
Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? [J].
Caird, Jenny ;
Sutcliffe, Katy ;
Kwan, Irene ;
Dickson, Kelly ;
Thomas, James .
EVIDENCE & POLICY, 2015, 11 (01) :81-97