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,...
Autores principales: | , , , , |
---|---|
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 |