Methodological approaches in conducting overviews: current state in HTA agencies

Abstract

Although the interest in overviews is rising, little methodological guidance for the conduct of overviews is provided by HTA agencies. Overviews are of special interest in the context of rapid assessments to support policy-making within a short time frame. Therefore, empirical work on overviews needs to be extended. National strategies and experience should be disclosed and discussed.

Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four‐item checklist

“…Of these, 36 were recovered from electronic database searches, 2 from handsearching, and 9 from references. Thirty‐one full text papers were considered for inclusion in the scoping review; 24 papers (Aromataris et al, ; Cochrane Comparing Multiple Interventions Methods Group, ; Aromataris et al, ; Baker et al, ; Becker and Oxman, ; Caird et al, ; Cochrane Comparing Multiple Interventions Methods Group, ; Conn and Coon Sells, ; Cooper and Koenka, ; Hartling et al, ; Hartling et al, ; Ioannidis, ; Li et al, ; Pieper et al, ; Pieper et al, ; Pieper et al, ; Piso et al, ; Santaguida et al, ; Smith et al, ; Thomson et al, ; Thomson et al, ; Pieper et al, ; Ryan et al, ; Yuan et al, ) reporting 22 guidelines or descriptive studies met the inclusion criteria (see Figure ).…”

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

“…Our five overviews provide examples of a range of different types of overviews, including Cochrane overviews, mixed method overviews and overviews of reviews of diagnostic test accuracy. There are some methodological differences between our exemplar overviews which cannot be attributed to the type or aim of the overviews, and these arguably occur due to lack of information and guidance on the optimal methods for overviews and reinforce recent calls for methodological research and improved guidance for overviews [2, 3, 5, 24, 25]. …”

“…Consider contacting authors of original reviews to see if they would update this. Note: Pieper [25] proposes and discusses two different approaches for searching for primary studies to ensure an overview is up-to-date; one approach involves searching for reviews and primary studies in parallel, whilst the other approach involves identifying the most up-to-date review and updating the searches from the date of the last search [56]. A clearly defined selection criteria for included reviews.The parameters or domains which are defined reflect the aims/focus of the overview.7.…”

The Healthcare Improvement Scotland evidence note rapid review process

“…Policy makers inevitably need to make decisions quickly, so HTA input to the policy-making process needs to be timely as well as usable if it is to inform decisions. [3][4][5] A full systematic review typically takes 1-2 years to complete. Consequently, many HTA agencies worldwide have increased production of rapid review products in response to demand for evidence-based information to support decisions within a shortened timeframe.…”