Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions published 2012-2016: Protocol for a systematic review

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Pieper, Dawid ^a   Pollock, Michelle ^b   Fernandes, Ricardo M ^c,d   Büchter, Roland Brian ^e   Hartling, Lisa ^b  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WITTEN HERDECKE   (Germany)

^b UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^c UNIVERSITY OF LISBON   (Portugal)

^d HOSPITAL DE SANTA MARIA   (Portugal)

^e INSTITUTE FOR QUALITY AND EFFICIENCY IN HEALTH CARE IQWIG   (Germany)

Author keywords

Evidence synthesis; Evidence based medicine; Knowledge synthesis; Overview of reviews; Review methods; Systematic reviews; Umbrella review

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; DATA EXTRACTION; DATA SYNTHESIS; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; INTERVENTION STUDY; OUTCOME ASSESSMENT; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLIC HEALTH PROBLEM; PUBLICATION; QUALITY CONTROL; STATISTICAL BIAS; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW (TOPIC); LITERATURE; REPRODUCIBILITY; STATISTICAL ANALYSIS;

DATA INTERPRETATION, STATISTICAL; HUMANS; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC;

EID: 85018625493     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0468-9     Document Type: Article

References (17)

1. Becker LA, Oxman AD. Overviews of reviews. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008: 607-31.
2. Hartling L, Chisholm A, Thomson D, Dryden DM. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49667.
3. Pieper D, Buechter R, Jerinic P, Eikermann M. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(12):1267-73.
4. Pieper D, Antoine SL, Mathes T, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M. Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(4):368-75.
5. Crick K, Wingert A, Williams K, Fernandes RM, Thomson D, Hartling L. An evaluation of harvest plots to display results of meta-analyses in overviews of reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2015;15:91.
6. Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Vist GE, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Glasziou P, Guyatt GH. Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. edn. Chichester: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2008: 359-87.
7. Agha RA, Fowler AJ, Limb C, Whitehurst K, Coe R, Sagoo H, Jafree DJ, Chandrakumar C, Gundogan B. Impact of the mandatory implementation of reporting guidelines on reporting quality in a surgical journal: a before and after study. Int J Surg (London, England). 2016;30:169-72.
8. Yu N, Yu P, Long X, Huang J, Jia Y, Wang X. A systematic quality evaluation of meta-analyses related to plastic surgery. Ann Plast Surg. 2017;78(1):111-8
9. Tan WK, Wigley J, Shantikumar S. The reporting quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in vascular surgery needs improvement: a systematic review. Int J Surg (London, England). 2014;12(12):1262-5.
10. Tunis AS, McInnes MD, Hanna R, Esmail K. Association of study quality with completeness of reporting: have completeness of reporting and quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in major radiology journals changed since publication of the PRISMA statement? Radiology. 2013;269(2):413-26.
11. Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Featherstone R, Hartling L. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):190.
12. Lunny C, McKenzie JE, McDonald S. Retrieval of overviews of systematic reviews in MEDLINE was improved by the development of an objectively derived and validated search strategy. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;74:107-18.
13. Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ. 2009;339:b2535.
14. Landis JR, Koch GG. The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics. 1977;33(1):159-74.
15. Bland JM, Altman DG. Statistics notes. The odds ratio. BMJ. 2000;320(7247):1468.
16. Hart A. Mann-Whitney test is not just a test of medians: differences in spread can be important. BMJ. 2001;323(7309):391-3.
17. Moher D, Shamseer L, Clarke M, Ghersi D, Liberati A, Petticrew M, Shekelle P, Stewart LA, Group P-P. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Syst Rev. 2015;4:1.