Examining overlap of included studies in meta‐reviews: Guidance for using the corrected covered area index

Hennessy, Emily A.; Johnson, Blair T.

doi:10.1002/jrsm.1390

Cited by 145 publications

(137 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

121

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The corrected covered area (CCA) is a metric that uses a citation matrix of all primary studies (rows) included in each review (columns) to produce a measure of overlap, i.e. the extent to which the primary studies in the reviews are the same or different 19 . Scores higher than 15% indicate significant overlap 20 .…”

Section: Uses Of Meta‐analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The use and abuse of meta‐analysis

Sotiriadis

Chatzakis

Odibo

2020

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Section: Uses Of Meta‐analysismentioning

confidence: 99%

The use and abuse of meta‐analysis

Sotiriadis

Chatzakis

Odibo

2020

Ultrasound in Obstet & Gyne

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…New guidance that has become available over the past 5 years has helped to resolve some common challenges inherent in the production of overviews of reviews. Important developments include a decision tool for selecting systematic reviews for inclusion in overviews of reviews [25] and expanded guidance on handling primary study overlap at the analysis stage [26,27]. Despite marked progress, several areas continue to be characterized by inconsistent or insufficient guidance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review

Gates

Guitard

et al. 2020

Syst Rev

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Overviews of reviews (overviews) provide an invaluable resource for healthcare decision-making by combining large volumes of systematic review (SR) data into a single synthesis. The production of high-quality overviews hinges on the availability of practical evidence-based guidance for conduct and reporting. Objectives Within the broad purpose of informing the development of a reporting guideline for overviews, we aimed to provide an up-to-date map of existing guidance related to the conduct of overviews, and to identify common challenges that authors face when undertaking overviews. Methods We updated a scoping review published in 2016 using the search methods that had produced the highest yield: ongoing reference tracking (2014 to March 2020 in PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar), hand-searching conference proceedings and websites, and contacting authors of published overviews. Using a qualitative meta-summary approach, one reviewer extracted, organized, and summarized the guidance and challenges presented within the included documents. A second reviewer verified the data and synthesis. Results We located 28 new guidance documents, for a total of 77 documents produced by 34 research groups. The new guidance helps to resolve some earlier identified challenges in the production of overviews. Important developments include strengthened guidance on handling primary study overlap at the study selection and analysis stages. Despite marked progress, several areas continue to be hampered by inconsistent or lacking guidance. There is ongoing debate about whether, when, and how supplemental primary studies should be included in overviews. Guidance remains scant on how to extract and use appraisals of quality of the primary studies within the included SRs and how to adapt GRADE methodology to overviews. The challenges that overview authors face are often related to the above-described steps in the process where evidence-based guidance is lacking or conflicting. Conclusion The rising popularity of overviews has been accompanied by a steady accumulation of new, and sometimes conflicting, guidance. While recent guidance has helped to address some of the challenges that overview authors face, areas of uncertainty remain. Practical tools supported by empirical evidence are needed to assist authors with the many methodological decision points that are encountered in the production of overviews.

show abstract

“…New guidance that has become available over the past ve years has helped to resolve some common challenges inherent in the production of overviews of reviews. Important developments include a decision tool for selecting systematic reviews for inclusion in overviews of reviews [25] and expanded guidance on handling primary study overlap at the analysis stage [26,27]. Despite marked progress, several areas continue to be characterized by inconsistent or insu cient guidance.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: A scoping review

Gates

Guitard

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background. Overviews of reviews (overviews) provide an invaluable resource for healthcare decision-making by combining large volumes of systematic review (SR) data into a single synthesis. The production of high-quality overviews hinges on the availability of practical evidence-based guidance for conduct and reporting.Objectives. Within the broad purpose of informing the development of a reporting guideline for overviews, we aimed to provide an up-to-date map of existing guidance related to the conduct of overviews, and to identify common challenges that authors face when undertaking overviews.Methods. We updated a scoping review published in 2016 using the search methods that had produced the highest yield: ongoing reference tracking (2014 to March 2020 in Pubmed, Scopus, and Google Scholar), hand-searching conference proceedings and websites, and contacting authors of published overviews. Using a qualitative meta-summary approach, one reviewer extracted, organized, and summarized the guidance and challenges presented within the included documents. A second reviewer verified the data and synthesis.Results. We located 28 new guidance documents, for a total of 77 documents produced by 34 research groups. The new guidance helps to resolve some earlier identified challenges in the production of overviews. Important developments include strengthened guidance on handling primary study overlap at the study selection and analysis stages. Despite marked progress, several areas continue to be hampered by inconsistent or lacking guidance. There is ongoing debate about whether, when, and how supplemental primary studies should be included in overviews. Guidance remains scant on how to extract and use appraisals of quality of the primary studies within the included SRs and how to adapt GRADE methodology to overviews. The challenges that overview authors face are often related to the above-described steps in the process where evidence-based guidance is lacking or conflicting.Conclusion. The rising popularity of overviews has been accompanied by a steady accumulation of new, and sometimes conflicting, guidance. While recent guidance has helped to address some of the challenges that overview authors face, areas of uncertainty remain. Practical tools supported by empirical evidence are needed to assist authors with the many methodological decision points that are encountered in the production of overviews.

show abstract

Examining overlap of included studies in meta‐reviews: Guidance for using the corrected covered area index

Cited by 145 publications

References 37 publications

The use and abuse of meta‐analysis

The use and abuse of meta‐analysis

Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: a scoping review

Guidance for overviews of reviews continues to accumulate, but important challenges remain: A scoping review

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About