Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26739283›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

Evidence map of studies evaluating methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions: rationale and design.

Carole Lunny, Sue E Brennan, Steve McDonald, Joanne E McKenzie

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 30 papers, 8 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
30citing papers in PubMed, 8 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

30 citing papers in PubMed, 8 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Review
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Breathing Exercises in the Treatment of COPD: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.International journal of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease · 2022
    Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Effectiveness and Safety of Herbal Medicine for Atopic Dermatitis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Evidence-based complementary and alternative medicine : eCAM · 2020
    Review
  20. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

4 authors.

Carole LunnyAustralasian Cochrane Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 549 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. carole.lunny@monash.edu.
Sue E BrennanAustralasian Cochrane Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 549 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. sue.brennan@monash.edu.
Steve McDonaldAustralasian Cochrane Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 549 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. steve.mcdonald@monash.edu.
Joanne E McKenzieAustralasian Cochrane Centre, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, 549 St Kilda Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. joanne.mckenzie@monash.edu.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOverviews of systematic reviews attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews into a single document. Methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of reviews are in their infancy. To date, there has been no systematic review or evidence map examining the range of methods for overviews nor of the evidence for using these methods. The objectives of the study are to develop and populate a framework of methods that have or may be used in conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions (stage I); create an evidence map of studies that have evaluated these methods (stage II); and identify and describe unique methodological challenges of overviews.

methodsThe research will be undertaken in two stages. For both stages, we plan to search methods collections (e.g. Cochrane Methodology Register, Meth4ReSyn library, AHRQ Effective Health Care Program) to identify eligible studies. These searches will be supplemented by searching reference lists and citation searching. Stage I: Methods used in overviews will be identified from articles describing methods for overviews, methods studies examining a cross section/cohort of overviews, guidance documents and commentaries. The identified methods will populate a framework of available methods for conducting an overview. Two reviewers will independently code included studies to develop the framework. Thematic analysis of the coded data will be used to categorise and describe methods. Stage II: Evaluations of the performance of methods will be identified from systematic reviews of methods studies and methods studies. Evaluations will be described and mapped to the framework of methods identified in stage I. DISCUSSION: The results of this process will be useful for mapping of methods for overviews of systematic reviews, informing guidance and identifying and prioritising method research in this field.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID26739283
PMCPMC4702312

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.