SynthesisSystematic reviews2017
Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction.
Synthesis in Systematic reviews, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 65 papers, 13 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
65 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of exercise therapy for osteoarthritis: an overview of systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials.RMD open · 2026Pooled it
- Perioperative oxygen therapy in patients undergoing surgical procedures: an overview of systematic reviews and meta-analyses.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Pooled it
- Perioperative quality indicators specific to the practice of anesthesia in noncardiac surgery: an umbrella review.Canadian journal of anaesthesia = Journal canadien d'anesthesie · 2024Pooled it
- Introduction of Various Models of Palliative Oncology Care: A Systematic Review.Reviews on recent clinical trials · 2024Pooled it
- Strategies associated with improved healthiness of consumer purchasing in supermarket interventions: a systematic overview of reviews and evaluation of primary articles.Frontiers in public health · 2024Pooled it
- Overview of systematic reviews of probiotics in the prevention and treatment of antibiotic-associated diarrhea in children.Frontiers in pharmacology · 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
- Methodological quality of systematic reviews on Chinese herbal medicine: a methodological survey.BMC complementary medicine and therapies · 2022Pooled it
- Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- Effects of exercise therapy in patients with acute low back pain: a systematic review of systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2020Pooled it
- Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Review
- Impact of matrix-construction assumptions on quantitative overlap assessment in overviews: A meta-research study.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- A step-by-step guide for conducting an umbrella review.Tropical medicine and health · 2025Review
- Experiences of Autistic Students in Postsecondary Education: A Review of Reviews.Autism in adulthood · 2025Article
- New opportunities and challenges for conservation evidence synthesis from advances in natural language processing.Conservation biology : the journal of the Society for Conservation Biology · 2025Article
- Article
- Patterns of Use of e-Cigarettes and Their Respiratory Effects: A Critical Umbrella Review.Tobacco use insights · 2025Review
5 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 attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews. Methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews are in their infancy. To date, there has been no evidence map of the methods used in overviews, thus making it difficult to determine the gaps and priorities for methods research. Our objectives were to develop and populate a comprehensive framework of methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews (stage I) and to create an evidence map by mapping studies that have evaluated overview methods to the framework (stage II).
methodsWe searched methods collections (e.g. Cochrane Methodology Register, Meth4ReSyn library, AHRQ Effective Health Care Program) to identify eligible studies for both stages of this research. In stage I, cross-sectional studies, guidance documents and commentaries that described methods proposed for, or used in, overviews were used to develop and populate the framework of methods. Drafts and multiple iterations of the framework were discussed and refined by all authors. In stage II, we identified and described studies evaluating overview methods and mapped these evaluations to the framework.
resultsIn this paper, we present results for the four initial steps of conducting an overview: (a) specification of the purpose, objectives and scope, (b) specification of the eligibility criteria, (c) search methods and (d) data extraction. Twenty-nine studies mentioned or described methods relevant to one or more of these steps. In the developed framework, identified methods and approaches were grouped according to the steps an overview author would need to undertake. Fifteen studies evaluated identified methods, all of which mapped to the search methods step. These studies either reported the development and evaluation of a new search filter to retrieve systematic reviews or compared the performance of multiple filters.
conclusionGaps in the evaluation of methods were found for the majority of steps in the framework. More empirical studies are needed to evaluate the methods outlined and provide a comprehensive evidence map. The framework is useful for planning these evaluations and for planning methods required to deal with challenges that arise when conducting an overview.
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.