Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30670086›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2019

A decision tool to help researchers make decisions about including systematic reviews in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

Michelle Pollock, Ricardo M Fernandes, Amanda S Newton, Shannon D Scott, Lisa Hartling

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
50citing papers in PubMed, 22 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

50 citing papers in PubMed, 22 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. 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 · 2025
    Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. 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.

Michelle PollockAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 4-472 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405 87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G-1C9, Canada.
Ricardo M FernandesClinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Amanda S NewtonDepartment of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Shannon D ScottFaculty of Nursing, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, 4-472 Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405 87 Avenue NW, Edmonton, AB, T6G-1C9, Canada. hartling@ualberta.ca.ORCID 0000-0001-8341-3991

Funding

CIHR 119373
6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingDecision Support TechniquesDelivery of Health CareSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansResearch DesignResearch PersonnelCase seriesDecision toolKnowledge synthesisOverview of reviewsSystematic review

Identifiers

PMID30670086
PMCPMC6341524

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.