Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four‐item checklist

Research Synthesis Methods - Tập 8 Số 1 - Trang 92-108 - 2017
Madeleine Ballard1, Paul Montgomery1
1Centre for Evidence-Based Intervention University of Oxford Oxford UK

Tóm tắt

ObjectiveTo assess the conditions under which employing an overview of systematic reviews is likely to lead to a high risk of bias.Study DesignTo synthesise existing guidance concerning overview practice, a scoping review was conducted. Four electronic databases were searched with a pre‐specified strategy (PROSPERO 2015:CRD42015027592) ending October 2015. Included studies needed to describe or develop overview methodology. Data were narratively synthesised to delineate areas highlighted as outstanding challenges or where methodological recommendations conflict.ResultsTwenty‐four papers met the inclusion criteria. There is emerging debate regarding overlapping systematic reviews; systematic review scope; quality of included research; updating; and synthesizing and reporting results. While three functions for overviews have been proposed—identify gaps, explore heterogeneity, summarize evidence—overviews cannot perform the first; are unlikely to achieve the second and third simultaneously; and can only perform the third under specific circumstances. Namely, when identified systematic reviews meet the following four conditions: (1) include primary trials that do not substantially overlap, (2) match overview scope, (3) are of high methodological quality, and (4) are up‐to‐date.ConclusionConsidering the intended function of proposed overviews with the corresponding methodological conditions may improve the quality of this burgeoning publication type. Copyright © 2017 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Từ khóa


Tài liệu tham khảo

Aromataris E, 2014, Methodology for JBI umbrella reviews, The Joanna Briggs Institute Reviewers Manual, 5

10.1097/XEB.0000000000000055

10.1093/pubmed/fdu050

Becker L, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions

10.1332/174426514X13988609036850

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.08.025

Cochrane Comparing Multiple Interventions Methods Group.2012Review type & methodological considerations: background paper for the first part of the Paris CMIMG discussion. Paris CMIMG Discussion Paris France.

Cochrane Comparing Multiple Interventions Methods Group2013.Undertaking publishing and maintaining Cochrane Reviews that compare multiple interventions.

Cochrane Empty Reviews Project.2013.The Cochrane empty reviews project [online]. Available from:https://empty‐reviews.org[Accessed May 10 2016].

10.1177/0193945913506968

10.1037/a0027119

10.1002/14651858.CD009255

10.1371/journal.pone.0065442

10.1371/journal.pone.0049667

10.1002/ebch.1968

Higgins JPT, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]

10.1111/jebm.12121

10.1503/cmaj.081086

Jadad AR, 1997, A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews, CMAJ, 156, 1411

10.1002/14651858.CD009234.pub2

10.1136/bmj.38973.444699.0B

Lamming L, 2014, What do we know about brief interventions to promote physical activity? Systematic review of reviews, European Health Psychologist, 16, 808

10.1111/j.1756-5391.2012.01185.x

10.1093/intqhc/mzu071

10.1111/j.1744-6570.1972.tb01099.x

10.1016/S0140-6736(99)04149-5

10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.09.018

10.1093/alcalc/agt170

10.1136/bmj.323.7317.829

10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007

10.1002/jrsm.1107

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.008

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2012.06.015

10.1016/j.zefq.2015.06.007

10.1186/1471-2288-9-16

10.2174/1874325001307010461

10.1177/0163278702025001008

10.1371/journal.pone.0001350

10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179

10.1002/14651858.CD008794.pub2

10.1186/1471-2288-11-15

10.1191/0269215505cr870oa

10.1136/bmj.g2035

10.1002/ebch.1963

10.1002/ebch.1897

10.1002/jrsm.30

Wang X. Lindsley K.&Li T.2012.Is there agreement in outcomes among Cochrane reviews to support ‘Overviews’ of reviews?A case study within the Cochrane Eyes and Vision Group (CEVG). The Cochrane Library. 2012 Supplement.

Yuan JQ, 2012, Survey of quality assessment methods of included studies in overviews of reviews, Chinese Journal of Evidence‐Based Medicine, 12, 238

Thông tin
Thông tin xuất bản

Research Synthesis Methods

Tập 8 Số 1

92-108

Thông tin tác giả