Evidence map›Paper›PMID 28886726›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2017

Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge.

Joanne E McKenzie, Sue E Brennan

Abstract readEditorial
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 51 papers, 17 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
51citing papers in PubMed, 17 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

51 citing papers in PubMed, 17 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Factors associated with response to patient-reported outcome measures: a systematic review of systematic and scoping reviews, and meta-analyses.Quality of life research : an international journal of quality of life aspects of treatment, care and rehabilitation · 2026
    Pooled it
  2. Key factors for promoting protective behaviours in future pandemics: an umbrella review.Archives of public health = Archives belges de sante publique · 2026
    Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Guideline
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Guideline
  11. Guideline
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Article
  19. Article
  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

2 authors.

Joanne E McKenzieSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, The Alfred Centre, 99 Commercial Road, Melbourne, VIC, 3004, Australia. joanne.mckenzie@monash.edu.
Sue E BrennanCochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The proliferation of systematic reviews and escalating demand from policy makers has driven a newer form of evidence synthesis-overviews of systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews are publishing a special thematic series on overviews and are encouraging submissions on the development and evaluation of methods for this review type. The authors' of this editorial introduce the series by considering challenges that arise when conducting an overview and what methods guidance is available. They emphasise the importance of evaluating overview methods to understand the trade-offs of using different approaches and propose that a more systematic and coordinated approach to methods development would be beneficial. Finally, they consider the potential for overviews to drive improvements in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicinePublishingResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicHumans

Identifiers

PMID28886726
PMCPMC5590122

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.