Evidence map›Paper›PMID 31823513›Full record

ArticleResearch synthesis methods2020

Examining overlap of included studies in meta-reviews: Guidance for using the corrected covered area index.

Emily A Hennessy, Blair T Johnson

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Research synthesis methods, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 161 papers, 85 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
161citing papers in PubMed, 85 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

161 citing papers in PubMed, 85 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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. 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

101 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Emily A HennessyInCHIP, Department of Psychological Sciences, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-5146-5823
Blair T JohnsonPsychology Department, University of Connecticut, Storrs, Connecticut.

Funding

Columbia University Science of Behavior Change Resource and Coordinating Center renewal -Ontology Administrative SupplementU24AG052175 · NIA · COLUMBIA UNIVERSITY HEALTH SCIENCES · PI EDMONDSON, DONALD · 2015 to 2024
$14.5M
NIA NIH HHS 5U24AG052175NIA NIH HHS U24 AG052175
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Overlap in meta-reviews results from the use of multiple identical primary studies in similar reviews. It is an important area for research synthesists because overlap indicates the degree to which reviews address the same or different literatures of primary research. Current guidelines to address overlap suggest that assessing and documenting the degree of overlap in primary studies, calculated via the corrected covered area (CCA) is a promising method. Yet, the CCA is a simple percentage of overlap and current guidelines do not detail ways that reviewers can use the CCA as a diagnostic tool while also comprehensively incorporating these findings into their conclusions. Furthermore, we maintain that meta-review teams must address non-independence via overlap more thoroughly than by simply estimating and reporting the CCA. Instead, we recommend and elaborate five steps to take when examining overlap, illustrating these steps through the use of an empirical example of primary study overlap in a recently conducted meta-review. This work helps to show that overlap of primary studies included in a meta-review is not necessarily a bias but often can be a benefit. We also highlight further areas of caution in this task and potential for the development of new tools to address non-independence issues.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicAbstracting and IndexingAlgorithmsBiasBlood PressureDecision TreesGuidelines as TopicHumanscitation matrixcorrected covered areameta-reviewoverlapoverview

Identifiers

PMID31823513
PMCPMC8555740

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.