Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28720141›Full record

ReviewSystematic reviews2017

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews.

Alex Pollock, Pauline Campbell, Ginny Brunton, Harriet Hunt, Lise Estcourt

Abstract readReview
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Review in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 21 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 21 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

60 citing papers in PubMed, 21 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Substantial heterogeneity in trauma triage tool characteristic operationalization for identification of major trauma: a hybrid systematic review.European journal of trauma and emergency surgery : official publication of the European Trauma Society · 2025
    Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Climate Change, Weather, Housing Precarity, and Homelessness: A Systematic Review of Reviews.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2021
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. The State of Evidence in Patient Portals: Umbrella Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2020
    Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. A systematic overview of systematic reviews evaluating medication adherence interventions.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2020
    Pooled it
  18. A systematic overview of systematic reviews evaluating interventions addressing polypharmacy.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2019
    Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it
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

5 authors.

Alex PollockNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Research Unit, 6th Floor Govan Mbeki Building, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK. Alex.Pollock@gcu.ac.uk.ORCID 0000-0003-4941-7985
Pauline CampbellNursing Midwifery and Allied Health Professions (NMAHP) Research Unit, Glasgow Caledonian University, Research Unit, 6th Floor Govan Mbeki Building, Cowcaddens Road, Glasgow, G4 0BA, UK.
Ginny BruntonUCL Institute of Education, University College London, 20 Bedford Way, London, WC1H 0AL, UK.
Harriet HuntUniversity of Exeter Medical School, St Luke's campus, Exeter, Devon, EX1 1TE, UK.
Lise EstcourtNHS Blood and Transplant Oxford and Radcliffe Department of Medicine, University of Oxford, Level 2, John Radcliffe Hospital, Oxford, OX3 9BQ, UK.

Funding

Chief Scientist Office CZH/4/854Chief Scientist Office NMAHP2Department of Health 13/89/09
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundOverviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed.

methodsMethods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus.

resultsMethodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews. Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified.

conclusionsOverviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.

Indexed as

Decision MakingEvidence-Based MedicinePublicationsReview Literature as TopicData AccuracyHumansResearch DesignChallengesMethodsOverviewsQuality assessmentSynthesis

Identifiers

PMID28720141
PMCPMC5516331

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.