ArticleSystematic reviews2019
A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 50 papers, 22 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
50 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Quality of Evidence for Prenatal Down Syndrome Screening: An Umbrella Review.Prenatal diagnosis · 2026Pooled it
- Effectiveness of exercise therapy for osteoarthritis: an overview of systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials.RMD open · 2026Pooled it
- Methodological quality and clinical applicability of long COVID guidelines and scientific statements: a systematic review using AGREE II and AGREE-REX.Frontiers in public health · 2026Pooled it
- Oral health interventions and strategies delivered by care workers to older people living in care homes: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC oral health · 2025Pooled it
- The application of antibiotic-loaded bone cement in preventing periprosthetic joint infection: an umbrella review.Journal of orthopaedics and traumatology : official journal of the Italian Society of Orthopaedics and Traumatology · 2025Pooled it
- Sleep disturbances in adults with chronic kidney disease: an umbrella review.Journal of nephrology · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of active video games for promoting physical activity: an umbrella review.Frontiers in sports and active living · 2025Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Risk factors for breast cancer: an umbrella review of observational cohort studies and causal relationship analysis.Frontiers in oncology · 2025Pooled it
- Association of tooth loss and nutritional status in adults: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC oral health · 2024Pooled it
- Autoimmune diseases and adverse pregnancy outcomes: an umbrella review.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Association between pregnancy-related complications and development of type 2 diabetes and hypertension in women: an umbrella review.BMC medicine · 2024Pooled it
- The Association of Vitamin D with Non-Melanoma Skin Cancer Risk: An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.Medicina (Kaunas, Lithuania) · 2023Pooled it
- Diagnosis or prognosis? An umbrella review of mid-trimester cervical length and spontaneous preterm birth.BJOG : an international journal of obstetrics and gynaecology · 2023Pooled it
- Anxiety Screening: Evidence Report and Systematic Review for the US Preventive Services Task Force.JAMA · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- The role of diet in renal cell carcinoma incidence: an umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies.BMC medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Effectiveness of interventions to prevent falls for people with multiple sclerosis, Parkinson's disease and stroke: an umbrella review.BMC neurology · 2021Pooled it
- Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundOverviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (overviews) integrate information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Overviews may identify multiple SRs that examine the same intervention for the same condition and include some, but not all, of the same primary studies. Different researchers use different approaches to manage these "overlapping SRs," but each approach has advantages and disadvantages. This study aimed to develop an evidence-based decision tool to help researchers make informed inclusion decisions when conducting overviews of healthcare interventions.
methodsWe used a two-stage process to develop the decision tool. First, we conducted a multiple case study to obtain empirical evidence upon which the tool is based. We systematically conducted seven overviews five times each, making five different decisions about which SRs to include in the overviews, for a total of 35 overviews; we then examined the impact of the five inclusion decisions on the overviews' comprehensiveness and challenges, within and across the seven overview cases. Second, we used a structured, iterative process to transform the evidence obtained from the multiple case study into an empirically based decision tool with accompanying descriptive text.
resultsThe resulting decision tool contains four questions: (1) Do Cochrane SRs likely examine all relevant intervention comparisons and available data? (2) Do the Cochrane SRs overlap? (3) Do the non-Cochrane SRs overlap? (4) Are researchers prepared and able to avoid double-counting outcome data from overlapping SRs, by ensuring that each primary study's outcome data are extracted from overlapping SRs only once? Guidance is provided to help researchers answer each question, and empirical evidence is provided regarding the advantages, disadvantages, and potential trade-offs of the different inclusion decisions.
conclusionsThis evidence-based decision tool is designed to provide researchers with the knowledge and means to make informed inclusion decisions in overviews. The tool can provide practical guidance and support for overview authors by helping them consider questions that could affect the comprehensiveness and complexity of their overviews. We hope this tool will be a useful resource for researchers conducting overviews, and we welcome discussion, testing, and refinement of the proposed tool.
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.