Back to Search
Start Over
A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011
- Source :
- PLoS ONE, Vol 7, Iss 11, p e49667 (2012), PLoS ONE
- Publication Year :
- 2012
- Publisher :
- Public Library of Science (PLoS), 2012.
-
Abstract
- Background Overviews of systematic reviews compile data from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) and are a new method of evidence synthesis. Objectives To describe the methodological approaches in overviews of interventions. Design Descriptive study. Methods We searched 4 databases from 2000 to July 2011; we handsearched Evidence-based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. We defined an overview as a study that: stated a clear objective; examined an intervention; used explicit methods to identify SRs; collected and synthesized outcome data from the SRs; and intended to include only SRs. We did not restrict inclusion by population characteristics (e.g., adult or children only). Two researchers independently screened studies and applied eligibility criteria. One researcher extracted data with verification by a second. We conducted a descriptive analysis. Results From 2,245 citations, 75 overviews were included. The number of overviews increased from 1 in 2000 to 14 in 2010. The interventions were pharmacological (n = 20, 26.7%), non-pharmacological (n = 26, 34.7%), or both (n = 29, 38.7%). Inclusion criteria were clearly stated in 65 overviews. Thirty-three (44%) overviews searched at least 2 databases. The majority reported the years and databases searched (n = 46, 61%), and provided key words (n = 58, 77%). Thirty-nine (52%) overviews included Cochrane SRs only. Two reviewers independently screened and completed full text review in 29 overviews (39%). Methods of data extraction were reported in 45 (60%). Information on quality of individual studies was extracted from the original SRs in 27 (36%) overviews. Quality assessment of the SRs was performed in 28 (37%) overviews; at least 9 different tools were used. Quality of the body of evidence was assessed in 13 (17%) overviews. Most overviews provided a narrative or descriptive analysis of the included SRs. One overview conducted indirect analyses and the other conducted mixed treatment comparisons. Publication bias was discussed in 18 (24%) overviews. Conclusions This study shows considerable variation in the methods used for overviews. There is a need for methodological rigor and consistency in overviews, as well as empirical evidence to support the methods employed.
- Subjects :
- Comparative Effectiveness Research
Research Validity
medicine.medical_specialty
Systematic Reviews
Non-Clinical Medicine
Clinical Research Design
Epidemiology
Science Policy
Economics
Population
MEDLINE
Health Care Sector
Information Storage and Retrieval
Child Welfare
lcsh:Medicine
Social and Behavioral Sciences
History, 21st Century
Databases
Health Economics
medicine
Humans
Medical physics
Child
education
lcsh:Science
Information Science
education.field_of_study
Health Care Policy
Evidence-Based Medicine
Multidisciplinary
Descriptive statistics
business.industry
Publications
lcsh:R
Publication bias
Evidence-based medicine
Research Assessment
Review Literature as Topic
Survey Methods
Systematic review
Data extraction
Meta-analysis
Computer Science
Medicine
Reporting Guidelines
lcsh:Q
Information Technology
business
Research Article
Subjects
Details
- Language :
- English
- ISSN :
- 19326203
- Volume :
- 7
- Issue :
- 11
- Database :
- OpenAIRE
- Journal :
- PLoS ONE
- Accession number :
- edsair.doi.dedup.....2ce3c084d2918d12a58a50df5cc3faee