Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: Evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor

Lunny, Carole; Neelakant, Trish; Chen, Alyssa; Shinger, Gavindeep; Stevens, Adrienne; Sadeghipouya, Shadi; Adams, Stephen P.; Zheng, Yi Wen; Lin, Lester; Yang, Pei-Hsuan; Dosanjh, Manpreet; Ngsee, Peter; Ellis, Ursula; Shea, Beverley; Reid, Emma; Wright, James M

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1530

Cited by 18 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 24 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They are growing in number and popularity, and our bibliometric study of the prevalence of overviews found an 8‐fold increase in the number of overviews published between 2009 ( n = 25) and 2020 ( n = 332). 1 The growth in overviews is unlikely to decrease. 1 …”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta‐research study of research waste

Lunny

Reid

Neelakant

et al. 2022

Research Synthesis Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundMultiple 'overviews of reviews' conducted on the same topic ("overlapping overviews") represent a waste of research resources and can confuse clinicians making decisions amongst competing treatments. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of overlapping overviews. MethodsMEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for overviews that: synthesised reviews of health interventions and conducted systematic searches. Overlap was de ned as: duplication of PICO eligibility criteria, and not reported as an update nor a replication. We categorized overview topics according to 22 WHO ICD-10 medical classi cations, overviews as broad or narrow in scope, and overlap as identical, nearly identical, partial, or subsumed. Subsummation was de ned as when broad overviews subsumed the populations, interventions and at least one outcome of another overview. ResultsOf 541 overviews included, 169 (31%) overlapped across similar PICO, fell within 13 WHO ICD-10 medical classi cations, and 62 topics. 148/169 (88%) overlapping overviews were broad in scope. Fifteen overviews were classi ed as having nearly identical overlap (9%); 123 partial overlap (73%), and 31 subsumed (18%) others. ConclusionsOne third of overviews overlapped in content and a majority covered broad topic areas. A multiplicity of overviews on the same topic adds to the ongoing waste of research resources, time and effort across medical disciplines. Authors of overviews can use this study and the sample of overviews to identify gaps in the evidence for future analysis, and topics that are already studied which do not need to be duplicated. HighlightsThis is the rst study to examine overlap across a sample of overviews of reviews.Of 541 overviews published from 2000 to 2018, 169 (31%) were considered overlapping in topic with one or more overviews.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta‐research study of research waste

Lunny

Reid

Neelakant

et al. 2022

Research Synthesis Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…We will use a database of 1218 overviews published between 1 January 2000 and 30 December 2020 created from a bibliometric study27 as the basis of our search for discordant reviews using Jadad or another method to assess discordance. A validated search filter for overviews28 was used in MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) for overviews.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same question: protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

et al. 2022

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

IntroductionAn increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (1) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (2) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency and comprehensiveness, and (3) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs.Methods and analysisWe will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000–2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called discordant reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors’ Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors’ assessment.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs.

show abstract

“…As described in our rst companion paper [1], we performed a bibliometric study of overviews published in MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos, and the CDSR from 2000-2018.…”

Section: Eligibility Criteriamentioning

confidence: 99%

Topic overlap and research waste at the ‘Overviews of systematic reviews’ level: a meta-research study

Lunny

Zhang

Chen

et al. 2021

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Multiple ‘overviews of reviews’ conducted on the same topic (“overlapping overviews”) represent a waste of research resources and can confuse clinicians making decisions amongst competing treatments. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of overlapping overviews. Methods MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for overviews that: synthesised reviews of health interventions and conducted systematic searches. Overlap was defined as: duplication of PICO eligibility criteria, and not reported as an update nor a replication. We categorized overview topics according to 22 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, overviews as broad or narrow in scope, and overlap as identical, nearly identical, partial, or subsumed. Subsummation was defined as when broad overviews subsumed the populations, interventions and at least one outcome of another overview. Results Of 541 overviews included, 169 (31%) overlapped across similar PICO, fell within 13 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, and 62 topics. 148/169 (88%) overlapping overviews were broad in scope. Fifteen overviews were classified as having nearly identical overlap (9%); 123 partial overlap (73%), and 31 subsumed (18%) others. Conclusions One third of overviews overlapped in content and a majority covered broad topic areas. A multiplicity of overviews on the same topic adds to the ongoing waste of research resources, time and effort across medical disciplines. Authors of overviews can use this study and the sample of overviews to identify gaps in the evidence for future analysis, and topics that are already studied which do not need to be duplicated.

show abstract

Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: Evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor

Cited by 18 publications

References 24 publications

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta‐research study of research waste

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta‐research study of research waste

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same question: protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

Topic overlap and research waste at the ‘Overviews of systematic reviews’ level: a meta-research study

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About