Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2014

Open Access 01-12-2014 | Research

Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs

Authors: Karen A Robinson, Evelyn P Whitlock, Maya E Oneil, Johanna K Anderson, Lisa Hartling, Donna M Dryden, Mary Butler, Sydne J Newberry, Melissa McPheeters, Nancy D Berkman, Jennifer S Lin, Stephanie Chang

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2014

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development.

Methods

We searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions.

Results

There was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews.

Conclusions

There remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
1.
go back to reference Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA: Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Int Med. 2008, 148: 776-782. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00010.CrossRefPubMed Whitlock EP, Lin JS, Chou R, Shekelle P, Robinson KA: Using existing systematic reviews in complex systematic reviews. Ann Int Med. 2008, 148: 776-782. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00010.CrossRefPubMed
2.
go back to reference Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. 2012, 10: 1-199. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality: Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. Methods Guide for Effectiveness and Comparative Effectiveness Reviews. 2012, 10: 1-199.
3.
go back to reference Fordis M: Observations in Translating CERs: Informing Report and Translation Product Development, Example 2.1. Evidence-based Practice Centers IV Inaugural Meeting: December 12, 2012. 2012, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 43-44. Fordis M: Observations in Translating CERs: Informing Report and Translation Product Development, Example 2.1. Evidence-based Practice Centers IV Inaugural Meeting: December 12, 2012. 2012, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 43-44.
4.
go back to reference Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM: Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007, 7: 10-10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, Porter AC, Tugwell P, Moher D, Bouter LM: Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007, 7: 10-10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
5.
go back to reference Oxman AD, Guyatt GH: Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991, 44: 1271-1278. 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B.CrossRefPubMed Oxman AD, Guyatt GH: Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol. 1991, 44: 1271-1278. 10.1016/0895-4356(91)90160-B.CrossRefPubMed
6.
go back to reference Newberry S, Shekelle P, Motala V: Reporting the Findings of Updated Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness: How Do Users Want To View New Information?. Reporting the Findings of Updated Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness: How Do Users Want To View New Information?. 2013, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 1-130. Newberry S, Shekelle P, Motala V: Reporting the Findings of Updated Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness: How Do Users Want To View New Information?. Reporting the Findings of Updated Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness: How Do Users Want To View New Information?. 2013, Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 1-130.
7.
go back to reference Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports. Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports. 2003, Ottawa, ON: CADTH, 1-42. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health: Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports. Guidelines for Authors of CADTH Health Technology Assessment Reports. 2003, Ottawa, ON: CADTH, 1-42.
8.
go back to reference Higgins J, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011, Chester, England: The Cochrane Collaboration Higgins J, Green S: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. 2011, Chester, England: The Cochrane Collaboration
9.
go back to reference Kristensen F, Sigmund H: Health Technology Assessment Handbook Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. 2007, Copenhagen: National Board of Health Copenhagen Kristensen F, Sigmund H: Health Technology Assessment Handbook Danish Centre for Health Technology Assessment. 2007, Copenhagen: National Board of Health Copenhagen
10.
go back to reference Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, Perleth M, Drummond M, Gurtner F, Jorgensen T, Jovell A, Malone J, Ruther A: Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002, 18: 361-422.CrossRef Busse R, Orvain J, Velasco M, Perleth M, Drummond M, Gurtner F, Jorgensen T, Jovell A, Malone J, Ruther A: Best practice in undertaking and reporting health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002, 18: 361-422.CrossRef
11.
go back to reference Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. 2011, Washington, DC: National Academies Press Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, Morton S: Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. 2011, Washington, DC: National Academies Press
12.
go back to reference Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: General Methods. General Methods. 2011, Cologne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, 4.0: 1-188. Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care: General Methods. General Methods. 2011, Cologne, Germany: Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care, 4.0: 1-188.
13.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: The Guidelines Manual. The Guidelines Manual. 2012, London, England: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: The Guidelines Manual. The Guidelines Manual. 2012, London, England: National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence
15.
go back to reference National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: The Social Guidance Manual. The Social Guidance Manual. 2013, London, England: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 140-144. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: The Social Guidance Manual. The Social Guidance Manual. 2013, London, England: National Institute for Health and Care Excellence, 140-144.
17.
go back to reference Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S: GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64: 401-406. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015.CrossRefPubMed Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, Oxman AD, Kunz R, Brozek J, Vist GE, Falck-Ytter Y, Meerpohl J, Norris S: GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011, 64: 401-406. 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015.CrossRefPubMed
18.
go back to reference Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savović J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011, 343: d5928-10.1136/bmj.d5928.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, Jüni P, Moher D, Oxman AD, Savović J, Schulz KF, Weeks L, Sterne JA: The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ. 2011, 343: d5928-10.1136/bmj.d5928.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral
19.
go back to reference Cornell JE, Laine C: The science and art of deduction: complex systematic overviews. Ann Int Med. 2008, 148: 786-788. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00012.CrossRefPubMed Cornell JE, Laine C: The science and art of deduction: complex systematic overviews. Ann Int Med. 2008, 148: 786-788. 10.7326/0003-4819-148-10-200805200-00012.CrossRefPubMed
Metadata
Title
Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs
Authors
Karen A Robinson
Evelyn P Whitlock
Maya E Oneil
Johanna K Anderson
Lisa Hartling
Donna M Dryden
Mary Butler
Sydne J Newberry
Melissa McPheeters
Nancy D Berkman
Jennifer S Lin
Stephanie Chang
Publication date
01-12-2014
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2014
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-60

Other articles of this Issue 1/2014

Systematic Reviews 1/2014 Go to the issue