scholarly journals Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews

2021 ◽  
Vol 21 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Pierre Thabet ◽  
Salmaan Kanji
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Overlapping Data ◽  
Study Results ◽  
Yield Trends

Abstract Background Overviews often identify and synthesise a large number of systematic reviews on the same topic, which is likely to lead to overlap (i.e. duplication) in primary studies across the reviews. Using a primary study result multiple times in the same analysis overstates its sample size and number of events, falsely leading to greater precision in the analysis. This paper aims to: (a) describe types of overlapping data that arise from the same primary studies reported across multiple reviews, (b) describe methods to identify and explain overlap of primary study data, and (c) present six case studies illustrating different approaches to manage overlap. Methods We first updated the search in PubMed for methods from the MOoR framework relating to overlap of primary studies. One author screened the studies titles and abstracts, and any full-text articles retrieved, extracted methods data relating to overlap of primary studies and mapped it to the overlap methods from the MOoR framework. We also describe six case studies as examples of overviews that use specific overlap methods across the steps in the conduct of an overview. For each case study, we discuss potential methodological implications in terms of limitations, efficiency, usability, and resource use. Results Nine methods studies were found and mapped to the methods identified by the MOoR framework to address overlap. Overlap methods were mapped across four steps in the conduct of an overview – the eligibility criteria step, the data extraction step, the assessment of risk of bias step, and the synthesis step. Our overview case studies used multiple methods to reduce overlap at different steps in the conduct of an overview. Conclusions Our study underlines that there is currently no standard methodological approach to deal with overlap in primary studies across reviews. The level of complexity when dealing with overlap can vary depending on the yield, trends and patterns of the included literature and the scope of the overview question. Choosing a method might be dependent on the number of included reviews and their primary studies. Gaps in evaluation of methods to address overlap were found and further investigation in this area is needed.

scholarly journals Managing Overlap of Primary Studies Results Across Systematic Reviews: Practical Considerations for Authors of Overviews of Reviews

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Dawid Pieper ◽  
Pierre Thabet ◽  
Salmaan Kanji
Keyword(s):  
Case Studies ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Methodological Approach ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Primary Study ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Overlapping Data ◽  
Extraction Step ◽  
Yield Trends

Abstract Background: In overviews, inclusion of the same primary study in multiple systematic review gives undue weight to this study. Using a study result multiple times in the same analysis overstates its sample size and number of events, falsely leading to greater precision in the analysis. This paper aims to: (a) describe types of overlapping data that arise from the same primary studies reported across multiple reviews, (b) describe methods to identify and explain overlap of primary study data, and (c) present six case studies illustrating different approaches to manage overlap. Methods: We first updated the search in PubMed for methods from the MOoR framework relating to overlap of primary studies. One author screened the studies titles and abstracts, and any full-text articles retrieved, extracted methods data relating to overlap of primary studies and mapped it to the overlap methods from the MOoR framework. We also describe six case studies as examples of overviews that use specific methods across the steps in the conduct of an overview. For each case study, we discuss potential implications in terms of methodological limitations, efficiency, usability, and resource use.Results: Eight studies were mapped to the methods identified by the MOoR framework to address overlap. Several overlap methods mapped across four steps in the conduct of an overview – the eligibility criteria step, the data extraction step, the assessment of risk of bias step, and the synthesis step. Our overview case studies used multiple methods to reduce overlap at different steps in the conduct of an overview.Conclusions: Our study underlines that there is currently no standard methodological approach to deal with overlap in primary studies across reviews. The level of complexity when dealing with overlap can vary depending on the yield, trends and patterns of the included literature and the scope of the overview question. Choosing a method might be dependent on the number of included reviews and their primary studies. Gaps in in evaluation of methods to address overlap were found and further investigation in this area is needed.

scholarly journals Spin in the reporting, interpretation, and extrapolation of adverse effects of orthodontic interventions: protocol for a cross-sectional study of systematic reviews

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Pauline A. J. Steegmans ◽  
Nicola Di Girolamo ◽  
Reint A. Meursinge Reynders
Keyword(s):  
Adverse Effects ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Linear Models ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Policy Implications ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Study Results

Abstract Background Titles and abstracts are the most read sections of biomedical papers. It is therefore important that abstracts transparently report both the beneficial and adverse effects of health care interventions and do not mislead the reader. Misleading reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of study results is called “spin”. In this study, we will assess whether adverse effects of orthodontic interventions were reported or considered in the abstracts of both Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews and whether spin was identified and what type of spin. Methods Eligibility criteria were defined for the type of study designs, participants, interventions, outcomes, and settings. We will include systematic reviews of clinical orthodontic interventions published in the five leading orthodontic journals and in the Cochrane Database. Empty reviews will be excluded. We will manually search eligible reviews published between 1 August 2009 and 31 July 2019. Data collection forms were developed a priori. All study selection and data extraction procedures will be conducted by two reviewers independently. Our main outcomes will be the prevalence of reported or considered adverse effects of orthodontic interventions in the abstract of systematic reviews and the prevalence of “spin” related to these adverse effects. We will also record the prevalence of three subtypes of spin, i.e., misleading reporting, misleading interpretation, and misleading extrapolation-related spin. All statistics will be calculated for the following groups: (1) all journals individually, (2) all journals together, and (3) the five leading orthodontic journals and the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews separately. Generalized linear models will be developed to compare the various groups. Discussion We expect that our results will raise the awareness of the importance of reporting and considering of adverse effects and the presence of the phenomenon of spin related to these effects in abstracts of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions. This is important, because an incomplete and inadequate reporting, interpretation, or extrapolation of findings on adverse effects in abstracts of systematic reviews can mislead readers and could lead to inadequate clinical practice. Our findings could result in policy implications for making judgments about the acceptance for publication of systematic reviews of orthodontic interventions.

scholarly journals Measuring frailty in younger populations: a rapid review of evidence

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e047051
Author(s):  
Gemma F Spiers ◽  
Tafadzwa Patience Kunonga ◽  
Alex Hall ◽  
Fiona Beyer ◽  
Elisabeth Boulton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Frailty Index ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Adult Age ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesFrailty is typically assessed in older populations. Identifying frailty in adults aged under 60 years may also have value, if it supports the delivery of timely care. We sought to identify how frailty is measured in younger populations, including evidence of the impact on patient outcomes and care.DesignA rapid review of primary studies was conducted.Data sourcesFour databases, three sources of grey literature and reference lists of systematic reviews were searched in March 2020.Eligibility criteriaEligible studies measured frailty in populations aged under 60 years using experimental or observational designs, published after 2000 in English.Data extraction and synthesisRecords were screened against review criteria. Study data were extracted with 20% of records checked for accuracy by a second researcher. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach.ResultsWe identified 268 studies that measured frailty in samples that included people aged under 60 years. Of these, 85 studies reported evidence about measure validity. No measures were identified that were designed and validated to identify frailty exclusively in younger groups. However, in populations that included people aged over and under 60 years, cumulative deficit frailty indices, phenotype measures, the FRAIL Scale, the Liver Frailty Index and the Short Physical Performance Battery all demonstrated predictive validity for mortality and/or hospital admission. Evidence of criterion validity was rare. The extent to which measures possess validity across the younger adult age (18–59 years) spectrum was unclear. There was no evidence about the impact of measuring frailty in younger populations on patient outcomes and care.ConclusionsLimited evidence suggests that frailty measures have predictive validity in younger populations. Further research is needed to clarify the validity of measures across the adult age spectrum, and explore the utility of measuring frailty in younger groups.

scholarly journals Reporting of the Role of the Expert Searcher in Cochrane Reviews

2006 ◽  
Vol 1 (4) ◽  
pp. 3 ◽  
Author(s):  
Li Zhang ◽  
Margaret Sampson ◽  
Jessie McGowan
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Statistical Decision ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Statistical Decisions ◽  
Search Quality

Introduction - This study applied the principles of evidence based information practice to clarify the role of information specialists and librarians in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews and to determine whether information specialists impact the quality of searching in Cochrane systematic reviews. Objectives - This research project sought to determine how the contribution of the person responsible for searching in the preparation of Cochrane systematic reviews was reported; whether the contribution was recognized through authorship or acknowledgement; the qualifications of the searcher; and the association between the type of contributorship and characteristics of the search strategy, assessability, and the presence of certain types of errors. Methods - Data sources: The Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, The Cochrane Library 3 (2002). Inclusion criteria: The study included systematic reviews that met the following criteria: one or more sections of the Cochrane Highly Sensitive Search Strategy were utilised, primary studies were either randomised controlled trials (RCTs) or quasi-RCTs, and included and excluded studies were clearly identified. Data extraction: Two librarians assessed the searches for errors, establishing consensus on discordant ratings. Results - Of the 169 reviews screened for this project, 105 met all eligibility criteria. Authors fulfilled the searching role in 41.9% of reviews studied, acknowledged persons or groups in 13.3%, a combination in 9.5%, and the role was not reported in 35.2% of reviews. For the 78 reviews in which meta-analyses were performed, the positions of those responsible for statistical decisions were examined for comparative purposes. The statistical role was performed by an author in 47.4% of cases and unreported in the same number of cases. Insufficient analyzable data was obtained regarding professional qualifications (3/105 for searching, 2/78 for statistical decisions). Search quality was assessed for 66 searches across 74 reviews. In general, it was more possible to assess the search quality when the searcher role was reported. An association was found between the reporting of searcher role and the presence of a consequential error. There was no association between the number of consequential errors and how the contribution of the searcher was reported. Conclusions - Qualifications of the persons responsible for searching and statistical decision-making were poorly reported in Cochrane reviews, but more complete role reporting is associated with greater assessability of searches and fewer substantive errors in search strategies.

scholarly journals Search for unpublished data by systematic reviewers: an audit

BMJ Open ◽  
2017 ◽  
Vol 7 (10) ◽  
pp. e017737 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hedyeh Ziai ◽  
Rujun Zhang ◽  
An-Wen Chan ◽  
Nav Persaud
Keyword(s):  
Publication Bias ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Cochrane Library ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Ovid Medline ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Unpublished Studies ◽  
Cochrane Database

ObjectivesWe audited a selection of systematic reviews published in 2013 and reported on the proportion of reviews that researched for unpublished data, included unpublished data in analysis and assessed for publication bias.DesignAudit of systematic reviews.Data sourcesWe searched PubMed and Ovid MEDLINE In-Process & Other Non-Indexed Citations between 1 January 2013 and 31 December 2013 for the following journals:Journal of the American Medical Association,The British Medical Journal,Lancet,Annals of Internal Medicineand theCochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. We also searched the Cochrane Library and included 100 randomly selected Cochrane reviews.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews published in 2013 in the selected journals were included. Methodological reviews were excluded.Data extraction and synthesisTwo reviewers independently reviewed each included systematic review. The following data were extracted: whether the review searched for grey literature or unpublished data, the sources searched, whether unpublished data were included in analysis, whether publication bias was assessed and whether there was evidence of publication bias.Main findings203 reviews were included for analysis. 36% (73/203) of studies did not describe any attempt to obtain unpublished studies or to search grey literature. 89% (116/130) of studies that sought unpublished data found them. 33% (68/203) of studies included an assessment of publication bias, and 40% (27/68) of these found evidence of publication bias.ConclusionA significant fraction of systematic reviews included in our study did not search for unpublished data. Publication bias may be present in almost half the published systematic reviews that assessed for it. Exclusion of unpublished data may lead to biased estimates of efficacy or safety in systematic reviews.

scholarly journals Improving the usefulness of evidence concerning the effectiveness of implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: Protocol for a series of systematic reviews

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Hervé Tchala Vignon Zomahoun ◽  
José Massougbodji ◽  
André Bussières ◽  
Aliki Thomas ◽  
Dahlia Kairy ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Primary Healthcare ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Healthcare Delivery ◽  
Implementation Strategies ◽  
Psychosocial Health ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Support Tool ◽  
Meta Analyses

Abstract Background : The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to: 1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; 2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and 3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them. Methods : We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population , individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; I ntervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, Phases 1 and 2 – any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; Phase 3 – any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting , primary healthcare has to be covered. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses and meta-analyses when possible. Discussion : Our results could inform not only the overviews’ methodology, but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science.

scholarly journals Publication practices of sub-Saharan African Cochrane authors: a bibliometric study

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e051839
Author(s):  
Lawrence Mbuagbaw ◽  
Anel Schoonees ◽  
Joy Oliver ◽  
Dachi Arikpo ◽  
Solange Durão ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Sub Saharan Africa ◽  
Bibliometric Study ◽  
Test Accuracy ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Reviews ◽  
Publication Practices ◽  
Sub Saharan ◽  
Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

IntroductionCochrane Africa (https://africa.cochrane.org/) aims to increase Cochrane reviews addressing high priority questions in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Researchers residing in SSA, despite often drawing on Cochrane methods, training or resources, conduct and publish systematic reviews outside of Cochrane. Our objective was to investigate the extent to which Cochrane authors from SSA publish Cochrane and non-Cochrane reviews.MethodsWe conducted a bibliometric study of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews from SSA, first by identifying SSA Cochrane authors, then retrieving their first and last author systematic reviews and overviews from PubMed (2008 to April 2019) and using descriptive analyses to investigate the country of origin, types of reviews and trends in publishing Cochrane and non-Cochrane systematic reviews over time. To be eligible, a review had to have predetermined objectives, eligibility criteria, at least two databases searched, data extraction, quality assessment and a first or last author with a SSA affiliation.ResultsWe identified 657 Cochrane authors and 757 eligible systematic reviews. Most authors were from South Africa (n=332; 51%), followed by Nigeria (n=126; 19%). Three-quarters of the reviews (71%) were systematic reviews of interventions. The intervention reviews were more likely to be Cochrane reviews (60.3% vs 39.7%). Conversely, the overviews (23.8% vs 76.2%), qualitative reviews (14.8% vs 85.2%), diagnostic test accuracy reviews (16.1% vs 83.9%) and the ‘other’ reviews (11.1% vs 88.9%) were more likely to be non-Cochrane reviews. During the study period, the number of non-Cochrane reviews increased more than the number of Cochrane reviews. About a quarter of the reviews covered infectious disease topics.ConclusionCochrane authors from SSA are increasingly publishing a diverse variety of systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews, often opting for non-Cochrane journals.

scholarly journals Methodological quality assessment in systematic reviews in health sciences that included observational studies: a cross-sectional study/ Avaliação da qualidade metodológica em revisões sistemáticas na área das ciências da saúde que incluíram estudos observacionais: um estudo transversal

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. 23002-23018
Author(s):  
Carla Massignan ◽  
Luciana Butini Oliveira ◽  
Lia Rosana Honnef ◽  
Júlia Meller de Oliveira ◽  
Karyn Lehmkuhl ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Quality Assessment ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Observational Studies ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Sample Size Calculation ◽  
Health Science ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cross Sectional ◽  
Protocol Registration

There is great variability in methodological quality assessment (MQ) systematic reviews (SRs). We identified how MQ assessment in SRs that included observational studies in Health Science is applied and explored associated characteristics. A search was conducted in PubMed and five trained reviewers randomly selected 1,025 references after sample size calculation. Only SR published in English (September 2019/2020) were included. Selection and data extraction were conducted in two phases. Data were analyzed descriptively and using logistic regressions. After eligibility criteria application, 205 SRs were included. Only 27.8% informed the protocol registration and 80.0% described having followed a reporting guideline. Proportion’ SRs did not seem to present MQ assessment (OR 4.22; 95% CI: 1.38-12.87; P =0.01). SRs that did not register the study protocol (9.70; 95% CI: 1.95-48.27; P 0.001), those that did not inform the included study design (5.96; 95% CI: 1.63-21.77; P 0.001) and those without MA (OR 8.90; 95% CI: 2.79-28.43; p0.001) increased the odds of not evaluating MQ. Newcastle-Ottawa (47.5%), Joanna Briggs Institute (8.2%) and National Institute of Health (7.1%) were the most commonly used MQ tools. Lack of protocol registration, absence of information about the design of included studies, absence of MA, and proportion’ SRs were associated with lack of MQ assessment.

scholarly journals Occupational Accidents Related to Heavy Machinery: A Systematic Review

Safety ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 7 (1) ◽  
pp. 21
Author(s):  
J. Duarte ◽  
A. Torres Marques ◽  
J. Santos Baptista
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Underground Mining ◽  
Primary Objective ◽  
Research Strategy ◽  
Occupational Accidents ◽  
Training Methods ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Workload Management ◽  
Study Results

Surface and underground mining, due to its technical challenges, is considered a hazardous industry. The great majority of accidents and fatalities are frequently associated with ineffective or inappropriate training methods. Knowing that knowledge of occupational accident causes plays a significant role in safety management systems, it is important to systematise this kind of information. The primary objective of this systematic review was to find evidence of work-related accidents involving machinery and their causes and, thus, to provide relevant data available to improve the mining project (design). The Preferred Reporting of Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) Statement methodology was used to conduct the review. This paper provides the main research results based on a systematic review protocol registered in the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), where the research strategy, information sources, and eligibility criteria are provided. From the 3071 articles identified, 16 were considered eligible and added to the study. Results are presented in a narrative-based form, with additional data provided in descriptive tables. The data analysed showed that the equipment often related to mining accidents are conveyor belts, haul trucks, and dumpers, especially during maintenance or repair activities. Attention should be paid to powered tools. Effective monitoring and machine operation control are some of the stated measures to minimise accidents. Particular attention should be paid to less experienced and senior workers, mainly through fatigue control, workload management, and appropriate training programs.

scholarly journals Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol

F1000Research ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 10 ◽  
pp. 802
Author(s):  
Claire Iannizzi ◽  
Elie A Akl ◽  
Lara A Kahale ◽  
Elena Dorando ◽  
Abina Mosunmola Aminat ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Scoping Review ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Data Extraction Form ◽  
Guidance Documents ◽  
Ongoing Surveillance ◽  
Methodological Aspects

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on an ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. A few guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but the methodology described is either not up-to date or not suitable for LSRs and misses additional LSR-specific considerations. The objective of this scoping review is to systematically collate methodological literature and guidance on how to conduct, report, publish and appraise the quality of LSRs. The scoping review will allow the mapping of the existing evidence on the topic to support LSRs authors seeking guidance and identify related gaps.  Methods: To achieve our objectives, we will conduct a scoping review to survey and evaluate existing evidence, using the standard scoping review methodology. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane using the OVID interface. The search strategy was developed by a researcher experienced in developing literature search strategies with the help of an information specialist. As for searching grey literature, we will seek existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses using the Lens.org website. Two review authors will extract and catalogue the study data on LSR methodological aspects into a standardized and pilot-tested data extraction form. The main categories will reflect proposed methods for (i) conducting LSRs, (ii) reporting of LSRs, (iii) publishing and (iv) appraising the quality of LSRs. Data synthesis and conclusion: By collecting these data from methodological surveys and papers, as well as existing guidance documents and handbooks on LSRs, we might identify specific issues and components lacking within current LSR methodology. Thus, the systematically obtained findings of the scoping review could be used as basis for the revision of existing methods tools on LSR, for instance a PRISMA statement extension for LSRs.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document