ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011.Download the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3MG21

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Pediatrics, Department of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE)

A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Hartling, L.
Chisholm, A.
Thomson, D.
Dryden, D. M.
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
systematic reviews
child health
decision making
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
Background: Overviews of systematic reviews compile data from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) and are a new method of evidence synthesis. Objectives: To describe the methodological approaches in overviews of interventions. Design: Descriptive study. Methods: We searched 4 databases from 2000 to July 2011; we handsearched Evidence-based Child Health: A Cochrane Review Journal. We defined an overview as a study that: stated a clear objective; examined an intervention; used explicit methods to identify SRs; collected and synthesized outcome data from the SRs; and intended to include only SRs. We did not restrict inclusion by population characteristics (e.g., adult or children only). Two researchers independently screened studies and applied eligibility criteria. One researcher extracted data with verification by a second. We conducted a descriptive analysis. Results: From 2,245 citations, 75 overviews were included. The number of overviews increased from 1 in 2000 to 14 in 2010. The interventions were pharmacological (n = 20, 26.7%), non-pharmacological (n = 26, 34.7%), or both (n = 29, 38.7%). Inclusion criteria were clearly stated in 65 overviews. Thirty-three (44%) overviews searched at least 2 databases. The majority reported the years and databases searched (n = 46, 61%), and provided key words (n = 58, 77%). Thirty-nine (52%) overviews included Cochrane SRs only. Two reviewers independently screened and completed full text review in 29 overviews (39%). Methods of data extraction were reported in 45 (60%). Information on quality of individual studies was extracted from the original SRs in 27 (36%) overviews. Quality assessment of the SRs was performed in 28 (37%) overviews; at least 9 different tools were used. Quality of the body of evidence was assessed in 13 (17%) overviews. Most overviews provided a narrative or descriptive analysis of the included SRs. One overview conducted indirect analyses and the other conducted mixed treatment comparisons. Publication bias was discussed in 18 (24%) overviews. Conclusions: This study shows considerable variation in the methods used for overviews. There is a need for methodological rigor and consistency in overviews, as well as empirical evidence to support the methods employed.
Date created
2012
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3MG21
License information
Creative Commons Attribution-Non-Commercial 3.0 Unported
Rights

Citation for previous publication
Hartling, L., Chisholm, A., Thomson, D., & Dryden, D. M. (2012). A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One, 7(11), e49667. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049667.
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2014-07-29T21:11:08.551+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 290020
Last modified: 2015:10:12 12:17:01-06:00
Filename: PLOS_7_11_e49667.pdf
Original checksum: da13eb1cb80051f9e43a3693ec30d195
Well formed: false
Valid: false
Status message: Unexpected error in findFonts java.lang.ClassCastException: edu.harvard.hul.ois.jhove.module.pdf.PdfSimpleObject cannot be cast to edu.harvard.hul.ois.jhove.module.pdf.PdfDictionary offset=2932
Page count: 8
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date