Up-to-dateness of reviews is often neglected in overviews: a systematic review

Pieper, Dawid; Antoine, Sunya-Lee; Neugebauer, Edmund; Eikermann, Michaela

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.008

Cited by 52 publications

(79 citation statements)

References 21 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…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 ).…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Of the papers included in the scoping review, six described four sets of methodological guidelines assembled by a working group or editorial team (Aromataris et al, ; Aromataris et al, ; Becker and Oxman, ; Cochrane Comparing Multiple Interventions Methods Group, ; Conn and Coon Sells, ; Cochrane Comparing Multiple Interventions Methods Group, ); 10 were narrative reviews or descriptions of authors' anecdotal experiences conducting overviews (Baker et al, ; Caird et al, ; Cooper and Koenka, ; Hartling et al, ; Ioannidis, ; Santaguida et al, ; Smith et al, ; Thomson et al, ; Piso et al, ; Ryan et al, ); seven were systematic reviews in which authors used a pre‐specified, comprehensive search strategy to assemble all overviews published during a given date range in order to describe their methodological characteristics and reporting (Hartling et al, ; Li et al, ; Pieper et al, ; Pieper et al, ; Pieper et al, ; Thomson et al, ; Yuan et al, ); and one was a systematic review of HTA guidelines (Pieper et al, ). Papers are listed by type in Table and the objective and methodological issues addressed by each summarized.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

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

Ballard

Montgomery

2017

Research Synthesis Methods

107

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

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

Ballard

Montgomery

2017

Research Synthesis Methods

107

155

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Clearly state plans for action to be taken if identified systematic review evidence is out of date or gaps in the evidence (i.e. absence of reviews) are identified) [56]. If searching for primary studies is to be considered, full details of the scope and methods for this should be provided.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…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.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundOverviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed.MethodsMethods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus.ResultsMethodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews.Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified.ConclusionsOverviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Shortcomings of our umbrella review are that we did not investigate overlap between eligible systematic reviews or search for relevant RCTs not included by the reviews. Whether reviews are contemporary (‘up-to-date’) is often neglected in overviews [91], but the risk of bias to our own is small, with the Paton review of RCTs itself so recently conducted [26]. However, overlap of included studies between systematic reviews of ERAS packages has been shown to be substantial for colorectal surgery [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Enhanced recovery after elective caesarean: a rapid review of clinical protocols, and an umbrella review of systematic reviews

Corso

Hind

Beever

et al. 2017

BMC Pregnancy Childbirth

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe rate of elective Caesarean Section (CS) is rising in many countries. Many obstetric units in the UK have either introduced or are planning to introduce enhanced recovery (ER) as a means of reducing length of stay for planned CS. However, to date there has been very little evidence produced regarding the necessary components of ER for the obstetric population. We conducted a rapid review of the composition of published ER pathways for elective CS and undertook an umbrella review of systematic reviews evaluating ER components and pathways in any surgical setting.MethodsPathways were identified using MEDLINE, EMBASE and the National Guideline Clearing House, appraised using the Appraisal of Guidelines for Research and Evaluation (AGREE II) tool and their components tabulated. Systematic reviews were identified using the Cochrane Library and Database of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects (DARE) and appraised using The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE). Two reviewers aggregated summaries of findings for Length of Stay (LoS).ResultsFive clinical protocols were identified, involving a total of 25 clinical components; 3/25 components were common to all five pathways (early oral intake, mobilization and removal of urinary catheter). AGREE II scores were generally low. Systematic reviews of single components found that minimally invasive Joel-Cohen surgical technique, early catheter removal and post-operative antibiotic prophylaxis reduced LoS after CS most significantly by around half to 1 and a half days. Ten meta-analyses of multi-component Enhanced Recovery after Surgery (ERAS) packages demonstrated reductions in LoS of between 1 and 4 days. The quality of evidence was mostly low or moderate.ConclusionsFurther research is needed to develop, using formal methods, and evaluate pathways for enhanced recovery in elective CS. Appropriate quality improvement packages are needed to optimise their implementation.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12884-017-1265-0) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Up-to-dateness of reviews is often neglected in overviews: a systematic review

Abstract: The issue of up-to-dateness when conducting overviews seems to be neglected by most authors of overviews. Authors should assess the quality of evidence, based on their included reviews first.

Cited by 52 publications

References 21 publications

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

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

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

Enhanced recovery after elective caesarean: a rapid review of clinical protocols, and an umbrella review of systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About