ReviewPloS one2012
A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011.
Review in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 85 papers, 23 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
85 citing papers in PubMed, 23 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Combined diet and physical activity effects on health-related outcomes in people with overweight or obesity: an overview of systematic reviews.Frontiers in nutrition · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of mouth rinses on caries prevention and arrest: an umbrella review.Evidence-based dentistry · 2025Pooled it
- Prevalence of suicidal ideation, suicide attempts and suicide deaths in people living with HIV: Are there differences between geographic locations or sexes? : An overview of systematic reviews with meta-analysis.Social psychiatry and psychiatric epidemiology · 2025Pooled it
- Access to mental healthcare for refugees, asylum seekers and migrants: an umbrella review of barriers.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- Digital Physical Activity and Sedentary Behavior Interventions for Community-Living Adults: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2025Pooled it
- What validated instruments, that measure implementation outcomes, are suitable for use in the Paediatric Intensive Care Unit (PICU) setting? A systematic review of systematic reviews.Implementation science : IS · 2024Pooled it
- Clinical effectiveness of pit and fissure sealants in primary and permanent teeth of children and adolescents: an umbrella review.European archives of paediatric dentistry : official journal of the European Academy of Paediatric Dentistry · 2024Pooled it
- Effectiveness of school-based nutrition intervention components on fruit and vegetable intake and nutrition knowledge in children aged 4-12 years old: an umbrella review.Nutrition reviews · 2023Pooled it
- Meta-analytic evidence on the efficacy of hypnosis for mental and somatic health issues: a 20-year perspective.Frontiers in psychology · 2023Pooled it
- Remotely Delivered Monitoring and Management of Diabetes-Related Foot Disease: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Journal of diabetes science and technology · 2023Pooled it
- How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Pooled it
- Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2022Guideline
- The effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following Emergency Department discharge: umbrella review.BMC geriatrics · 2022Pooled it
- Prevention of Non-Contact Anterior Cruciate Ligament Injuries among Youth Female Athletes: An Umbrella Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Methodological approaches for assessing certainty of the evidence in umbrella reviews: A scoping review.PloS one · 2022Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Silver diamine fluoride for managing carious lesions: an umbrella review.BMC oral health · 2019Pooled it
- Characteristics of Effective Interventions Promoting Healthy Eating for Pre-Schoolers in Childcare Settings: An Umbrella Review.Nutrients · 2018Pooled it
- Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Effectiveness of needle and syringe Programmes in people who inject drugs - An overview of systematic reviews.BMC public health · 2017Pooled it
25 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundOverviews of systematic reviews compile data from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) and are a new method of evidence synthesis.
objectivesTo describe the methodological approaches in overviews of interventions.
designDescriptive study.
methodsWe 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.
resultsFrom 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.
conclusionsThis 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.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.