Designing the review

Umbrella Reviews: Evidence Synthesis with Overviews of Reviews and Meta-Epidemiologic Studies

Volumn , Issue , 2016, Pages 57-80

  Papageorgiou, Spyridon N ^a   Biondi Zoccai, Giuseppe ^b,c  

^a UNIVERSITY OF BONN   (Germany)

^b SAPIENZA UNIVERSITY OF ROME   (Italy)

^c Eleonora Lonillard Spencer Cenci Foundation   (Italy)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 85068764891     PISSN: None     EISSN: None     Source Type: Book    
DOI: 10.1007/978-3-319-25655-9_5     Document Type: Chapter

References (92)

1. Bastian H, Glasziou P, Chalmers I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326.
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:e49667.
3. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher M. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.
4. Guirguis-Blake J, Calonge N, Miller T, Siu A, Teutsch S, Whitlock E. Current processes of the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force: refining evidence-based recommendation development. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:117-22.
5. Lavis JN. How can we support the use of systematic reviews in policymaking? PLoS Med Public Libr Sci. 2009;6:e1000141.
6. Bambra C, Gibson M, Sowden AJ, Wright K, Whitehead M, Petticrew M. Working for health? Evidence from systematic reviews on the effects on health and health inequalities of organisational changes to the psychosocial work environment. Prev Med. 2009;48:454-61.
7. Becker LA, Oxman AD. Chapter 22. Overview of reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. Available from www.cochrane-handbook.org.
8. Ioannidis JP. Integration of evidence from multiple meta-analyses: a primer on umbrella reviews, treatment networks and multiple treatments meta-analyses. Can Med Assoc J. 2009;181:488-93.
9. Biondi-Zoccai G, editor. Network meta-analysis: evidence synthesis with mixed treatment comparison. Hauppauge: Nova; 2014.
10. Sterne JA, Juni P, Schulz KF, Altman DG, Bartlett C, Egger M. Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in 'meta-epidemiological' research. Stat Med. 2002;21:1513-24.
11. Stewart L, Moher D, Shekelle P. Why prospective registration of systematic reviews makes sense. Syst Rev. 2012;1:7.
12. Chalmers I, Bracken MB, Djulbegovic B, Garattini S, Grant J, Gulmezoglu AM, Howells DW, Ioannidis JP, Oliver S. How to increase value and reduce waste when research priorities are set. Lancet. 2014;383:156-65.
13. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:1-76.
14. Papageorgiou SN, Antonoglou G, Tsiranidou E, Jepsen S, Jãger A. Bias and small-study effects influence treatment effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study in oral medicine. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:984-92.
15. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, Liberati A. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53:964-72.
16. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31:115-23.
17. Panagiotou OA, Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JP. Comparative effect sizes in randomised trials from less developed and more developed countries: meta-epidemiological assessment. BMJ. 2013;346:f707.
18. Bowater RJ, Hartley LC, Lilford RJ. Are cardiovascular trial results systematically different between North America and Europe? A study based on intra-meta-analysis comparisons. Arch Cardiovasc Dis. 2015;108:23-38.
19. Golder S, Loke YK, Bland M. Meta-analyses of adverse effects data derived from randomised controlled trials as compared to observational studies: methodological overview. PLoS Med. 2011;8:e1001026.
20. Tzoulaki I, Siontis KC, Ioannidis JP. Prognostic effect size of cardiovascular biomarkers in datasets from observational studies versus randomised trials: meta-epidemiology study. BMJ. 2011;343:d6829.
21. Papageorgiou SN, Xavier GM, Cobourne MT. Basic study design influences the results of orthodontic clinical investigations. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015. (Epub ahead of print). doi:10.1016/j. jclinepi.2015.03.008.
22. Nuesch E, Trelle S, Reichenbach S, Rutjes AW, Tschannen B, Altman DG, Egger M, Juni P. Small study effects in meta-analyses of osteoarthritis trials: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2010;341:c3515.
23. Chaimani A, Vasiliadis HS, Pandis N, Schmid CH, Welton NJ, Salanti G. Effects of study precision and risk of bias in networks of interventions: a network meta-epidemiological study. Int J Epidemiol. 2013;42:1120-31.
24. Dechartres A, Trinquart L, Boutron I, Ravaud P. Influence of trial sample size on treatment effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study. BMJ. 2013;346:f2304.
25. Savović J, Jones H, Altman D, Harris R, Juni P, Pildal J, Als-Nielsen B, Balk E, Gluud C, Gluud L, Ioannidis J, Schulz K, Beynon R, Welton N, Wood L, Moher D, Deeks J, Sterne J. Influence of reported study design characteristics on intervention effect estimates from randomised controlled trials: combined analysis of meta-epidemiological studies. Health Technol Assess. 2012;16:1-82.
26. Turner R, Spiegelhalter D, Smith G, Thompson S. Bias modelling in evidence synthesis. J R Stat Soc Ser A Stat Soc. 2009;172:21-47.
27. Welton N, Ades A, Carlin J, Altman D, Sterne J. Models for potentially biased evidence in meta-analysis using empirically based priors. J R Stat Soc Ser A. 2009;172:119e36.
28. Biondi-Zoccai GG, Lotrionte M, Abbate A, Testa L, Remigi E, Burzotta F, Valgimigli M, Romagnoli E, Crea F, Agostoni P. Compliance with QUOROM and quality of reporting of overlapping meta-analyses on the role of acetylcysteine in the prevention of contrast associated nephropathy: case study. BMJ. 2006;332:202-9.
29. Panic N, Leoncini E, de Belvis G, Ricciardi W, Boccia S. Evaluation of the endorsement of the preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement on the quality of published systematic review and meta-analyses. PLoS One. 2013;8:e83138.
30. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Evaluation of methodology and quality characteristics of systematic reviews in orthodontics. Orthod Craniofac Res. 2011;14:116-37.
31. 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;269:413-26.
32. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Reporting characteristics of metaanalyses in orthodontics: methodological assessment and statistical recommendations. Eur J Orthod. 2014;36:74-85.
33. Papageorgiou SN, Papadopoulos MA, Athanasiou AE. Assessing small study effects and publication bias in orthodontics: a meta-epidemiological study. Clin Oral Investig. 2014;18:1031-44.
34. Onishi A, Furukawa TA. Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: metaepidemiologic study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1320-6.
35. Papageorgiou SN, Dimitraki D, Coolidge T, Kotsanos N. Publication bias & small-study effects in pediatric dentistry meta-analyses. J Evid Based Dent Pract. 2015;15:8-24.
36. Seida JK, Ospina MB, Karkhaneh M, Hartling L, Smith V, Clark B. Systematic reviews of psychosocial interventions for autism: an umbrella review. Dev Med Child Neurol. 2009;51:95-104.
37. Cipriani A, Higgins JP, Geddes JR, Salanti G. Conceptual and technical challenges in network meta-analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2013;159:130-7.
38. Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Reeves BC, Ekl EA, Santesso N, Spencer FA, Shea B, Wells G, Helfand M. Non-randomized studies as a source of complementary, sequential, or replacement evidence for randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews on the effects of interventions. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4:49-62.
39. Pieper D, Antoine SL, Neugebauer EA, Eikermann M. Up-to-dateness of reviews is often neglected in overviews: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67:1302-8.
40. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, Barrowman N. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2008;(1):MR000023.
41. Pattanittum P, Laopaiboon M, Moher D, Lumbiganon P, Ngamjarus C. A comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews. PLoS One. 2012;7:e48894.
42. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224-33.
43. Pieper D, Buechter R, Jerinic P, Eikermann M. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65:1267-73.
44. Hunt DL, McKibbon KA. Locating and appraising systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:532-8.
45. Shojania KG, Bero LA. Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy. Eff Clin Pract. 2001;4:157-62.
46. Montori VM, Wilczynski NL, Morgan D, Haynes RB; Hedges Team. Optimal search strategies for retrieving systematic reviews from Medline: analytical survey. BMJ. 2005;330:68.
47. Wilczynski NL, Haynes RB. EMBASE search strategies achieved high sensitivity and specificity for retrieving methodologically sound systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:29-33.
48. Lee E, Dobbins M, Decorby K, McRae L, Tirilis D, Husson H. An optimal search filter for retrieving systematic reviews and metaanalyses. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2012;12:51.
49. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309:1286-91.
50. Whiting P, Westwood M, Burke M, Sterne J, Glanville J. Systematic reviews of test accuracy should search a range of databases to identify primary studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:357-64.
51. Petticrew M, Song F, Wilson P, Wright K. Quality-assessed reviews of health care interventions and the database of abstracts of reviews of effectiveness (DARE). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 1999;15:671-8.
52. Smith V, Devane D, Begley C, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011;211:11-5.
53. Rathbone J, Carter M, Hoffmann T, Glasziou P. Better duplicate detection for systematic reviewers: evaluation of Systematic Review Assistant-Deduplication Module. Syst Rev. 2015;4:6.
54. Qi X, Yang M, Ren W, Jia J, Wang J, Han G, Fan D. Find duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane library databases in systematic review. PLoS One. 2013;8:e71838.
55. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Mulrow C, Gotzsche PC, Ioannidis JP, Clarke M, Devereaux PJ, Kleijnen J, Moher D. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:e1-34.
56. Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gotzsche PC, Juni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savovic J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA; Cochrane Bias Methods Group; Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomized trials. BMJ. 2011;343:d5928.
57. Deeks JJ, Dinnes J, D'Amico R, Sowden AJ, Sakarovitch C, Song F, Petticrew M, Altman DG; International Stroke Trial Collaborative Group; European Carotid Surgery Trial Collaborative Group. Evaluating non-randomised intervention studies. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii-x, 1-173.
58. Downs SH, Black N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377-84.
59. Wells G, Shea B, O'Connell D, Peterson J, Welch V, Losos M, Tugwell P. The Newcastle-Ottawa Scale (NOS) for assessing the quality of nonrandomized studies in meta-analyses. Available from: http://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/oxford.asp. Accessed 24 Mar 2014.
60. Oxman AD, Guyatt GH. Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991;44:1271-8.
61. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
62. Moher D, Cook DJ, Eastwood S, Olkin I, Rennie D, Stroup DF; for the QUOROM Group. Improving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Lancet. 1999;354:1896-900.
63. Glenny AM, Esposito M, Coulthard P, Worthington HV. The assessment of systematic reviews in dentistry. Eur J Oral Sci. 2003;111:85-92.
64. Guyatt G, Rennie D. Users' guides to medical literature: a manual for evidence-based clinical practice. Chicago: American Medical Association; 2002.
65. The Joanna Briggs Institute. Rapid appraisal protocol internet database. Rapid user guide 1.2. Adelaide: The Joanna Briggs Institute; 2006.
66. Task Force on Systematic Review and Guidelines. Guidelines for assessing the quality and applicability of systematic reviews. Austin: National Center for the Dissemination of Disability Research; 2011. Available at: http://www.ncddr.org/guidelines.
67. Shea B, Dube C, Moher D. Assessing the quality of reports of systematic reviews: the QUORUM statement compared to other tools. In: Egger M, Smith GD, Altman DG, editors. Systematic reviews in health care: meta-analysis in context. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001. p. 122-39.
68. Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:20.
69. Canadian Coordinating Office of Health Technology Assessment. COMPUS procedure. Evidence-based best practice recommendations. Available: http://www.cadth.ca/media/com-pus/pdf/COMPUS_%20procedure_e.pdf. Accessed 28 Mar 2015.
70. Higgins JPT, Lane PW, Anagnostelis B, Anzures-Cabrera J, Baker NF, Cappelleri JC, Haughie S, Hollis S, Lewis SC, Moneuse P, Whitehead A. A tool to assess the quality of a meta-analysis. Res Synth Methods. 2013;4:351-66.
71. Papageorgiou SN. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: part II-is all that glitters gold? J Orthod. 2014;41:327-36.
72. Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Tugwell P, Knottnerus A. GRADE guidelines: a new series of articles in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:380-2.
73. Chinn S. A simple method for converting an odds ratio to effect size for use in meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2000;19:3127-31.
74. Contopoulos-Ioannidis DG, Ioannidis JP. Claims for improved survival from systemic cortico-steroids in diverse conditions: an umbrella review. Eur J Clin Invest. 2012;42:233-44.
75. Theodoratou E, Tzoulaki I, Zgaga L, Ioannidis JP. Vitamin D and multiple health outcomes: umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses of observational studies and randomised trials. BMJ. 2014;348:g2035.
76. Papageorgiou SN. Meta-analysis for orthodontists: part I--how to choose effect measure and statistical model. J Orthod. 2014;41:317-26.
77. Belbasis L, Bellou V, Evangelou E, Ioannidis JP, Tzoulaki I. Environmental risk factors and multiple sclerosis: an umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Lancet Neurol. 2015;14:263-73.
78. Tsilidis KK, Kasimis JC, Lopez DS, Ntzani EE, Ioannidis JP. Type 2 diabetes and cancer: umbrella review of meta-analyses of observational studies. BMJ. 2015;350:g7607.
79. Shrier I, Platt RW, Steele RJ. Mega-trials vs. meta-analysis: precision vs. heterogeneity? Contemp Clin Trials. 2007;28:324-8.
80. Inthout J, Ioannidis JP, Borm GF. Obtaining evidence by a single well-powered trial or several modestly powered trials. Stat Methods Med Res. 2012. [Epub ahead of print].
81. Biondi-Zoccai G, Peruzzi M, Frati G. Commentary: which do you like better... a bowl of Cheerios or a Big Mac? Pros and cons of meta-analyses in endovascular research. J Endovasc Ther. 2013;20:145-8.
82. Egger M, Davey Smith G, Schneider M, Minder C. Bias in meta-analysis detected by a simple, graphical test. BMJ. 1997;315:629-34.
83. Harbord RM, Egger M, Sterne JA. A modified test for small-study effects in meta-analyses of controlled trials with binary endpoints. Stat Med. 2006;25:3443-57.
84. Peters JL, Sutton AJ, Jones DR, Abrams KR, Rushton L. Comparison of two methods to detect publication bias in meta-analysis. JAMA. 2006;295:676-80.
85. Ioannidis JP, Trikalinos TA. An exploratory test for an excess of significant findings. Clin Trials. 2007;4:245-53.
86. Ioannidis J. Clarifications on the application and interpretation of the test for excess significance and its extensions. J Math Psychol. 2013;57:184-7.
87. Strech D, Tilburt J. Value judgments in the analysis and synthesis of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:521-4.
88. Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148:776-82.
89. Jadad AR, Cook DJ, Browman GP. A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ. 1997;156:1411-6.
90. Lu G, Ades AE. Combination of direct and indirect evidence in mixed treatment comparisons. Stat Med. 2004;23:3105-24.
91. Glenny AM, Altman DG, Song F, Sakarovitch C, Deeks JJ, D'Amico R, Bradburn M, Eastwood AJ. Indirect comparisons of competing interventions. Health Technol Assess. 2005;9:26.
92. Thomson D, Russell K, Becker L, Klassen T, Hartling L. The evolution of a new publication type: steps and challenges of producing overviews of reviews. Res Synth Methods. 2010;1:198-211.