Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four‐item checklist
Tóm tắt
To assess the conditions under which employing an overview of systematic reviews is likely to lead to a high risk of bias.
To 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.
Twenty‐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.
Considering 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
Becker L, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions
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].
Higgins JPT, 2011, Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]
Jadad AR, 1997, A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews, CMAJ, 156, 1411
Lamming L, 2014, What do we know about brief interventions to promote physical activity? Systematic review of reviews, European Health Psychologist, 16, 808
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