Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2018

Open Access 01-12-2018 | Methodology

An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview

Authors: Harriet Hunt, Alex Pollock, Pauline Campbell, Lise Estcourt, Ginny Brunton

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2018

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Overviews of systematic reviews are a relatively new approach to synthesising evidence, and research methods and associated guidance are developing. Within this paper we aim to help readers understand key issues which are essential to consider when taking the first steps in planning an overview. These issues relate to the development of clear, relevant research questions and objectives prior to the development of an overview protocol.

Methods

Initial discussions and key concepts for this paper were formed during a workshop on overview methods at the 2016 UK Cochrane Symposium, at which all members of this author group presented work and contributed to wider discussions. Detailed descriptions of the various key features of overviews and their different objectives were created by the author group based upon current evidence (Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook Syst Rev Interv. 2011;4:5, Pollock M, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:190-205, Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. UK and Ireland: Cochrane Symposium; 2016, Pieper D, et al. Res Syn Meth. 2014;5:187–99, Lunny C, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:4-12, Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium; 2015, Hartling L, et al. Plos One. 2012;7:1-8, Ballard M, Montgomery P. Res Syn Meth. 2017;8:92-108) and author experiences conducting overviews.

Results

Within this paper we introduce different types of overviews and suggest common research questions addressed by these overviews. We briefly reflect on the key features and objectives of the example overviews discussed.

Conclusions

Clear decisions relating to the research questions and objectives are a fundamental first step during the initial planning stages for an overview. Key stakeholders should be involved at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the planned overview is relevant and meaningful to the potential end users of the overview. Following best practice in common with other forms of systematic evidence synthesis, an overview protocol should be published, ensuring transparency and reducing opportunities for introduction of bias in the conduct of the overview.
Literature
1.
go back to reference Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Catalá-López F, Li L, Reid EK, Sarkis-Onofre R, Epidemiology MD. reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS medicine. 2016;13(5):e1002028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Catalá-López F, Li L, Reid EK, Sarkis-Onofre R, Epidemiology MD. reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS medicine. 2016;13(5):e1002028.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
3.
go back to reference Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Res. Methodology. 2011;11(1):15–21. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Res. Methodology. 2011;11(1):15–21.
4.
go back to reference Lunny C, et al. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1—purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lunny C, et al. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1—purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):231.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
6.
go back to reference Aromataris E, et al. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2015;13(3):132–40.CrossRef Aromataris E, et al. Summarizing systematic reviews: methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach. Int J Evidence-Based Healthcare. 2015;13(3):132–40.CrossRef
7.
go back to reference Becker, L. and A. Oxman, Chapter 22: Overviews of reviews., in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 H. JPT and G. S, Editors. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration. Becker, L. and A. Oxman, Chapter 22: Overviews of reviews., in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 H. JPT and G. S, Editors. 2011, The Cochrane Collaboration.
8.
go back to reference Pieper D, Antoine SL, Morfeld JC, Mathes T, Eikermann M. Methodological approaches in conducting overviews: current state in HTA agencies. Res Synthesis Methods. 2014;5(3):187–99.CrossRef Pieper D, Antoine SL, Morfeld JC, Mathes T, Eikermann M. Methodological approaches in conducting overviews: current state in HTA agencies. Res Synthesis Methods. 2014;5(3):187–99.CrossRef
9.
go back to reference Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Evidence map of studies evaluating methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions: rationale and design. Systematic reviews. 2016;5(1):4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Lunny C, Brennan SE, McDonald S, McKenzie JE. Evidence map of studies evaluating methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions: rationale and design. Systematic reviews. 2016;5(1):4.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
10.
go back to reference Worswick J, et al. Improving quality of care for persons with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews—what does the evidence tell us? Systematic Reviews. 2013;2(1):26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Worswick J, et al. Improving quality of care for persons with diabetes: an overview of systematic reviews—what does the evidence tell us? Systematic Reviews. 2013;2(1):26.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
11.
go back to reference Caird J, et al. Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? Evidence Policy. 2015;11(1):81–97.CrossRef Caird J, et al. Mediating policy-relevant evidence at speed: are systematic reviews of systematic reviews a useful approach? Evidence Policy. 2015;11(1):81–97.CrossRef
12.
go back to reference Whitlock EP, et al. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(10):776–82.CrossRefPubMed Whitlock EP, et al. Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(10):776–82.CrossRefPubMed
13.
go back to reference Pollock M, et al. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):190–205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Pollock M, et al. What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):190–205.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
14.
go back to reference Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium: Filtering the information overload for better decisions. Vienna: Wiley; 2015. Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium: Filtering the information overload for better decisions. Vienna: Wiley; 2015.
15.
go back to reference Ballard M, Montgomery P. Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Res Synthesis Methods. 2017;8 Ballard M, Montgomery P. Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist. Res Synthesis Methods. 2017;8
16.
go back to reference Pieper D, Buechter R, Jerinic P, Eikermann M. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(12):1267–73.CrossRefPubMed Pieper D, Buechter R, Jerinic P, Eikermann M. Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(12):1267–73.CrossRefPubMed
17.
go back to reference Thomson D, Foisy M, Oleszczuk M, Wingert A, Chisholm A, Hartling L. Overview of reviews in child health: evidence synthesis and the knowledge base for a specific population. Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Rev J. 2013;8(1):3–10.CrossRef Thomson D, Foisy M, Oleszczuk M, Wingert A, Chisholm A, Hartling L. Overview of reviews in child health: evidence synthesis and the knowledge base for a specific population. Evidence-Based Child Health: A Cochrane Rev J. 2013;8(1):3–10.CrossRef
18.
go back to reference Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. Birmingham: UK and Ireland Cochrane Symposium; 2016. Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. Birmingham: UK and Ireland Cochrane Symposium; 2016.
19.
go back to reference Hoving JL, et al. Work participation and arthritis: a systematic overview of challenges, adaptations and opportunities for interventions. Rheumatology. 2013;52(7):1254–64.CrossRefPubMed Hoving JL, et al. Work participation and arthritis: a systematic overview of challenges, adaptations and opportunities for interventions. Rheumatology. 2013;52(7):1254–64.CrossRefPubMed
21.
go back to reference McClurg D, et al. Conservative interventions for urinary incontinence in women: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9 McClurg D, et al. Conservative interventions for urinary incontinence in women: an overview of Cochrane systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2016;9
22.
go back to reference Pollock A, et al. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11 Pollock A, et al. Interventions for improving upper limb function after stroke. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;11
23.
go back to reference Brunton G, et al. Developing evidence-informed, employer-led workplace health. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London; 2016. Brunton G, et al. Developing evidence-informed, employer-led workplace health. London: EPPI-Centre, Social Science Research Unit, UCL Institute of Education, University College London; 2016.
24.
go back to reference Harris J, et al. How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(2):207–14.CrossRefPubMed Harris J, et al. How stakeholder participation can contribute to systematic reviews of complex interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 2016;70(2):207–14.CrossRefPubMed
25.
go back to reference Estcourt LJ, et al. Red blood cell transfusion to treat or prevent complications in sickle cell disease: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2016;2 Estcourt LJ, et al. Red blood cell transfusion to treat or prevent complications in sickle cell disease: an overview of Cochrane reviews. Cochrane Database of Syst Rev. 2016;2
27.
go back to reference Castle W, et al. Serevent nationwide surveillance study: comparison of salmeterol with salbutamol in asthmatic patients who require regular bronchodilator treatment. BMJ. 1993;306(6884):1034–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Castle W, et al. Serevent nationwide surveillance study: comparison of salmeterol with salbutamol in asthmatic patients who require regular bronchodilator treatment. BMJ. 1993;306(6884):1034–7.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
28.
go back to reference Nelson HS, et al. The salmeterol multicenter asthma research trial: a comparison of usual pharmacotherapy for asthma or usual pharmacotherapy plus salmeterol. CHEST J. 2006;129(1):15–26.CrossRef Nelson HS, et al. The salmeterol multicenter asthma research trial: a comparison of usual pharmacotherapy for asthma or usual pharmacotherapy plus salmeterol. CHEST J. 2006;129(1):15–26.CrossRef
29.
go back to reference Gillespie DC, Bowen A, Chung CS, Cockburn J, Knapp P, Pollock A. Rehabilitation for post-stroke cognitive impairment: an overview of recommendations arising from systematic reviews of current evidence. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(2):120–8.CrossRefPubMed Gillespie DC, Bowen A, Chung CS, Cockburn J, Knapp P, Pollock A. Rehabilitation for post-stroke cognitive impairment: an overview of recommendations arising from systematic reviews of current evidence. Clin Rehabil. 2015;29(2):120–8.CrossRefPubMed
30.
go back to reference Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, Golder S, Santaguida P, Altman DG, Moher D, Vohra S. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157.CrossRefPubMed Zorzela L, Loke YK, Ioannidis JP, Golder S, Santaguida P, Altman DG, Moher D, Vohra S. PRISMA harms checklist: improving harms reporting in systematic reviews. BMJ. 2016;352:i157.CrossRefPubMed
31.
go back to reference Frieden TR. Evidence for health decision making—beyond randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):465–75.CrossRefPubMed Frieden TR. Evidence for health decision making—beyond randomized, controlled trials. N Engl J Med. 2017;377(5):465–75.CrossRefPubMed
32.
go back to reference Berlin JA, Glasser SC, Ellenberg SS. Adverse event detection in drug development: recommendations and obligations beyond phase 3. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1366–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Berlin JA, Glasser SC, Ellenberg SS. Adverse event detection in drug development: recommendations and obligations beyond phase 3. Am J Public Health. 2008;98(8):1366–71.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
34.
go back to reference Posadzki P, Watson LK, Ernst E. Adverse effects of herbal medicines: an overview of systematic reviews. Clin Med (Lond). 2013;13(1):7–12.CrossRefPubMed Posadzki P, Watson LK, Ernst E. Adverse effects of herbal medicines: an overview of systematic reviews. Clin Med (Lond). 2013;13(1):7–12.CrossRefPubMed
35.
go back to reference Bossuyt P, et al., Chapter 11: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In:, in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, and Gatsonis C, Editors. 2013, The Cochrane Collaboration. Bossuyt P, et al., Chapter 11: Interpreting results and drawing conclusions. In:, in Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy Deeks JJ, Bossuyt PM, and Gatsonis C, Editors. 2013, The Cochrane Collaboration.
36.
go back to reference Mocellin S, Pasquali S. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2 Mocellin S, Pasquali S. Diagnostic accuracy of endoscopic ultrasonography (EUS) for the preoperative locoregional staging of primary gastric cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015;2
37.
go back to reference Hunt, H., E. Kuzma, and H. C, A review of existing systematic reviews summarising the accuracy of brief cognitive assessments for identifying dementia, particularly for use in primary care. Protocol., in PROSPERO 2016: PROSPERO online. Hunt, H., E. Kuzma, and H. C, A review of existing systematic reviews summarising the accuracy of brief cognitive assessments for identifying dementia, particularly for use in primary care. Protocol., in PROSPERO 2016: PROSPERO online.
39.
go back to reference Santaguida L, et al. A description of the methodology used in an overview of reviews to evaluate evidence on the treatment, harms, diagnosis/ classification, prognosis and outcomes used in the management of neck pain. Open Orthopaedics. 2013;7(Suppl 4 : M2):461–72.CrossRef Santaguida L, et al. A description of the methodology used in an overview of reviews to evaluate evidence on the treatment, harms, diagnosis/ classification, prognosis and outcomes used in the management of neck pain. Open Orthopaedics. 2013;7(Suppl 4 : M2):461–72.CrossRef
40.
go back to reference Kyrgiou M, et al. Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature. BMJ. 2017;356 Kyrgiou M, et al. Adiposity and cancer at major anatomical sites: umbrella review of the literature. BMJ. 2017;356
41.
go back to reference 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 http://handbook.cochrane.org. 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 http://​handbook.​cochrane.​org.
43.
go back to reference Gentles SJ, et al. Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Gentles SJ, et al. Reviewing the research methods literature: principles and strategies illustrated by a systematic overview of sampling in qualitative research. Systematic Reviews. 2016;5(1):172.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
44.
go back to reference Weir MC, et al. Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: a case study in systematic reviews of health care professional reminders. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(7):756–63.CrossRefPubMed Weir MC, et al. Decisions about lumping vs. splitting of the scope of systematic reviews of complex interventions are not well justified: a case study in systematic reviews of health care professional reminders. J Clin Epidemiol. 2012;65(7):756–63.CrossRefPubMed
45.
go back to reference Baker PR, et al. The benefits and challenges of conducting an overview of systematic reviews in public health: a focus on physical activity. J Public Health. 2014;36(3):517–21.CrossRef Baker PR, et al. The benefits and challenges of conducting an overview of systematic reviews in public health: a focus on physical activity. J Public Health. 2014;36(3):517–21.CrossRef
46.
go back to reference Stewart LA, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657–65.CrossRefPubMed Stewart LA, et al. Preferred reporting items for a systematic review and meta-analysis of individual participant data: the PRISMA-IPD statement. JAMA. 2015;313(16):1657–65.CrossRefPubMed
47.
go back to reference INVOLVE Exploring the impact of public involvement on the quality of research: examples. 2013. INVOLVE Exploring the impact of public involvement on the quality of research: examples. 2013.
48.
go back to reference Kreis J, et al. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16(4):323–37.CrossRefPubMed Kreis J, et al. Consumer involvement in systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness research. Health Expect. 2013;16(4):323–37.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview
Authors
Harriet Hunt
Alex Pollock
Pauline Campbell
Lise Estcourt
Ginny Brunton
Publication date
01-12-2018
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2018
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8

Other articles of this Issue 1/2018

Systematic Reviews 1/2018 Go to the issue