Cargando…

The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions

BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile 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,...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Pollock, Michelle, Fernandes, Ricardo M., Newton, Amanda S., Scott, Shannon D., Hartling, Lisa
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2019
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6329144/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30635048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3
_version_ 1783386779645116416
author Pollock, Michelle
Fernandes, Ricardo M.
Newton, Amanda S.
Scott, Shannon D.
Hartling, Lisa
author_facet Pollock, Michelle
Fernandes, Ricardo M.
Newton, Amanda S.
Scott, Shannon D.
Hartling, Lisa
author_sort Pollock, Michelle
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile 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. There is currently limited guidance on whether and how to include these overlapping SRs in overviews. Our objectives were to assess how different inclusion decisions in overviews of healthcare interventions affect their comprehensiveness and results, and document challenges encountered when making different inclusion decisions in overviews. METHODS: We used five inclusion decisions to conduct overviews across seven topic areas, resulting in 35 overviews. The inclusion decisions were (1) include all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, (2) include only Cochrane SRs, or consider all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but include only non-overlapping SRs, and in the case of overlapping SRs, select (3) the Cochrane SR, (4) the most recent SR (by publication or search date), or (5) the highest quality SR (assessed using AMSTAR). For each topic area and inclusion scenario, we documented the amount of outcome data lost and changed and the challenges involved. RESULTS: When conducting overviews, including only Cochrane SRs, instead of all SRs, often led to loss/change of outcome data (median 31% of outcomes lost/changed; range 0–100%). Considering all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but including only non-overlapping SRs and selecting the Cochrane SR for groups of overlapping SRs (instead of the most recent or highest quality SRs) allowed the most outcome data to be recaptured (median 42% of lost/changed outcome recaptured; range 28–86%). Across all inclusion scenarios, challenges were encountered when extracting data from overlapping SRs. CONCLUSIONS: Overlapping SRs present a methodological challenge for overview authors. This study demonstrates that different inclusion decisions affect the comprehensiveness and results of overviews in different ways, depending in part on whether Cochrane SRs examine all intervention comparisons relevant to the overview. Study results were used to develop an evidence-based decision tool that provides practical guidance for overview authors. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-6329144
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2019
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-63291442019-01-16 The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions Pollock, Michelle Fernandes, Ricardo M. Newton, Amanda S. Scott, Shannon D. Hartling, Lisa Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile 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. There is currently limited guidance on whether and how to include these overlapping SRs in overviews. Our objectives were to assess how different inclusion decisions in overviews of healthcare interventions affect their comprehensiveness and results, and document challenges encountered when making different inclusion decisions in overviews. METHODS: We used five inclusion decisions to conduct overviews across seven topic areas, resulting in 35 overviews. The inclusion decisions were (1) include all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, (2) include only Cochrane SRs, or consider all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but include only non-overlapping SRs, and in the case of overlapping SRs, select (3) the Cochrane SR, (4) the most recent SR (by publication or search date), or (5) the highest quality SR (assessed using AMSTAR). For each topic area and inclusion scenario, we documented the amount of outcome data lost and changed and the challenges involved. RESULTS: When conducting overviews, including only Cochrane SRs, instead of all SRs, often led to loss/change of outcome data (median 31% of outcomes lost/changed; range 0–100%). Considering all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but including only non-overlapping SRs and selecting the Cochrane SR for groups of overlapping SRs (instead of the most recent or highest quality SRs) allowed the most outcome data to be recaptured (median 42% of lost/changed outcome recaptured; range 28–86%). Across all inclusion scenarios, challenges were encountered when extracting data from overlapping SRs. CONCLUSIONS: Overlapping SRs present a methodological challenge for overview authors. This study demonstrates that different inclusion decisions affect the comprehensiveness and results of overviews in different ways, depending in part on whether Cochrane SRs examine all intervention comparisons relevant to the overview. Study results were used to develop an evidence-based decision tool that provides practical guidance for overview authors. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2019-01-11 /pmc/articles/PMC6329144/ /pubmed/30635048 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3 Text en © The Author(s). 2019 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research
Pollock, Michelle
Fernandes, Ricardo M.
Newton, Amanda S.
Scott, Shannon D.
Hartling, Lisa
The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_full The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_fullStr The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_full_unstemmed The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_short The impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
title_sort impact of different inclusion decisions on the comprehensiveness and complexity of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6329144/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/30635048
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3
work_keys_str_mv AT pollockmichelle theimpactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT fernandesricardom theimpactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT newtonamandas theimpactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT scottshannond theimpactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT hartlinglisa theimpactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT pollockmichelle impactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT fernandesricardom impactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT newtonamandas impactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT scottshannond impactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions
AT hartlinglisa impactofdifferentinclusiondecisionsonthecomprehensivenessandcomplexityofoverviewsofreviewsofhealthcareinterventions