Topic overlap and research waste at the ‘Overviews of systematic reviews’ level: a meta-research study

Abstract Background Multiple ‘overviews of reviews’ conducted on the same topic (“overlapping overviews”) represent a waste of research resources, and can confuse clinicians who are required to choose among competing treatments. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of overlapping overviews. Methods MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane databases were searched for overviews that: synthesised reviews of health interventions and conducted systematic searches. Overlap in topic was defined as: duplication of PICO elements, not representing an update of a previous overview, and not a replication. We also categorized the overviews as broad or narrow in scope. Results Of 541 overviews identified (2000–2018), 172 (32%) overlapped across similar PICO. The overlapping overviews fell within 13 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications and 63 topics. The overviews may have overlapped partially or completely, such that a similar portion, major component(s), or complete representation of an overview was duplicated. 149/172 (87%) overlapping overviews were characterized as broad in scope. Most frequently, broad overviews had targeted populations for which multiple interventions were addressed (44%), or least frequently, they had a targeted intervention for multiple populations (17%). Conclusions One third of overviews overlapped in content with a majority covering broad topic areas, and fewer considering subsets of the evidence. A multiplicity of overviews on the same topic adds to the ongoing waste of research resources, time and effort across medical disciplines. This study and the database of 172 overlapping overviews can provide a guide to authors about which topics are covered, and gaps in the evidence for future analysis.

Download Full-text

Topic overlap and research waste at the ‘Overviews of systematic reviews’ level: a meta-research study

10.21203/rs.3.rs-665009/v3 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Jia He Zhang ◽

Alyssa Chen ◽

Trish Neelakant ◽

Gavindeep Shinger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Study ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Icd 10 ◽

Partial Overlap ◽

Medical Disciplines ◽

Overviews Of Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Resources

Abstract Background Multiple ‘overviews of reviews’ conducted on the same topic (“overlapping overviews”) represent a waste of research resources and can confuse clinicians making decisions amongst competing treatments. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of overlapping overviews. Methods MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for overviews that: synthesised reviews of health interventions and conducted systematic searches. Overlap was defined as: duplication of PICO eligibility criteria, and not reported as an update nor a replication. We categorized overview topics according to 22 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, overviews as broad or narrow in scope, and overlap as identical, nearly identical, partial, or subsumed. Subsummation was defined as when broad overviews subsumed the populations, interventions and at least one outcome of another overview. Results Of 541 overviews included, 169 (31%) overlapped across similar PICO, fell within 13 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, and 62 topics. 148/169 (88%) overlapping overviews were broad in scope. Fifteen overviews were classified as having nearly identical overlap (9%); 123 partial overlap (73%), and 31 subsumed (18%) others. Conclusions One third of overviews overlapped in content and a majority covered broad topic areas. A multiplicity of overviews on the same topic adds to the ongoing waste of research resources, time and effort across medical disciplines. Authors of overviews can use this study and the sample of overviews to identify gaps in the evidence for future analysis, and topics that are already studied which do not need to be duplicated.

Download Full-text

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across ‘Overviews of systematic reviews’: a meta-research study of research waste

10.21203/rs.3.rs-665009/v4 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Jia He Zhang ◽

Alyssa Chen ◽

Trish Neelakant ◽

Gavindeep Shinger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Study ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Eligibility Criteria ◽

Cochrane Database ◽

Icd 10 ◽

Partial Overlap ◽

Medical Disciplines ◽

Overviews Of Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Resources

Download Full-text

Topic duplication and research waste at the ‘Overviews of systematic reviews’ level: Survey of overlapping overviews

10.21203/rs.3.rs-665009/v1 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Jia He Zhang ◽

Alyssa Chen ◽

Trish Neelakant ◽

Gavindeep Shinger ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Smoking Cessation ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Health Intervention ◽

Clinical Treatment ◽

Clinical Question ◽

Research Waste ◽

Icd 10 ◽

Muscle Health ◽

Overviews Of Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Resources

Abstract Background Multiple overviews of systematic reviews conducted on the same topic (“overlapping overviews”) represent a waste of research resources and can confuse or mislead clinicians and policymakers. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of published overviews addressing the same clinical question or topic. Methods We used MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane databases to locate overviews that: focused on synthesising reviews; conducted systematic searches; had a methods section; and examined a health intervention or clinical treatment. We then determined which overviews addressed the same or overlapping populations/settings, interventions, and outcomes [PIO]). Overlap in topic was defined as: duplication of PIO elements, not representing an update of a previous overview, and not a replication for quality purposes. Results Of 541 overviews located (2000–2018), 178 (33%) overlapped with another overview addressing a similar PIO. The topics of overlapping overviews fell within 13 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, and there were 65 overlapping topics in total. The most prevalent topic with overlap across 7 overviews was smoking cessation (pharmacologic and non-pharmacologic interventions). Five overlapping overviews related to acupuncture for pain, 5 addressed cannabinoids for pain and symptoms, and 5 addressed exercise for bone and muscle health. For 15/65 (22%) of these topics, one author was involved in at least two of the overlapping overviews. Conclusions We found significant duplication and unnecessary overlap across overviews. To avoid waste and redundancy, protocols of overviews should be registered in a targeted database, and overviews should cite other studies on similar topic with a rationale.

Download Full-text

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across ‘Overviews of systematic reviews’: a meta‐research study of research waste

Research Synthesis Methods ◽

10.1002/jrsm.1542 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Emma K. Reid ◽

Trish Neelakant ◽

Alyssa Chen ◽

Jia He Zhang ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Systematic Reviews ◽

Research Study ◽

Research Waste ◽

Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

Download Full-text

Bibliometric study of ‘overviews of systematic reviews’ of health interventions: evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor

Research Synthesis Methods ◽

10.1002/jrsm.1530 ◽

2021 ◽

Author(s):

Carole Lunny ◽

Trish Neelakant ◽

Alyssa Chen ◽

Gavindeep Shinger ◽

Adrienne Stevens ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Impact Factor ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Journal Impact Factor ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Bibliometric Study ◽

Journal Impact ◽

Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

Download Full-text

Digital health interventions in palliative care: a systematic meta-review

npj Digital Medicine ◽

10.1038/s41746-021-00430-7 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 4 (1) ◽

Author(s):

Anne M. Finucane ◽

Hannah O’Donnell ◽

Jean Lugton ◽

Tilly Gibson-Watt ◽

Connie Swenson ◽

...

Keyword(s):

Decision Making ◽

Palliative Care ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Psychological Symptoms ◽

Digital Health ◽

Evidence Synthesis ◽

Information Provision ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Meta Review

AbstractDigital health interventions (DHIs) have the potential to improve the accessibility and effectiveness of palliative care but heterogeneity amongst existing systematic reviews presents a challenge for evidence synthesis. This meta-review applied a structured search of ten databases from 2006 to 2020, revealing 21 relevant systematic reviews, encompassing 332 publications. Interventions delivered via videoconferencing (17%), electronic healthcare records (16%) and phone (13%) were most frequently described in studies within reviews. DHIs were typically used in palliative care for education (20%), symptom management (15%), decision-making (13%), information provision or management (13%) and communication (9%). Across all reviews, mostly positive impacts were reported on education, information sharing, decision-making, communication and costs. Impacts on quality of life and physical and psychological symptoms were inconclusive. Applying AMSTAR 2 criteria, most reviews were judged as low quality as they lacked a protocol or did not consider risk of bias, so findings need to be interpreted with caution.

Download Full-text

The use of ‘PICO for synthesis’ and methods for synthesis without meta-analysis: protocol for a survey of current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions

F1000Research ◽

10.12688/f1000research.24469.2 ◽

2021 ◽

Vol 9 ◽

pp. 678

Author(s):

Miranda S. Cumpston ◽

Joanne E. McKenzie ◽

James Thomas ◽

Sue E. Brennan

Keyword(s):

Health Systems ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Current Practice ◽

Meta Analysis ◽

Visual Display ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Synthesis Process ◽

Future Research ◽

Synthesis Methods ◽

Definition Of

Introduction: Systematic reviews involve synthesis of research to inform decision making by clinicians, consumers, policy makers and researchers. While guidance for synthesis often focuses on meta-analysis, synthesis begins with specifying the ’PICO for each synthesis’ (i.e. the criteria for deciding which populations, interventions, comparators and outcomes are eligible for each analysis). Synthesis may also involve the use of statistical methods other than meta-analysis (e.g. vote counting based on the direction of effect, presenting the range of effects, combining P values) augmented by visual display, tables and text-based summaries. This study examines these two aspects of synthesis. Objectives: To identify and describe current practice in systematic reviews of health interventions in relation to: (i) approaches to grouping and definition of PICO characteristics for synthesis; and (ii) methods of summary and synthesis when meta-analysis is not used. Methods: We will randomly sample 100 systematic reviews of the quantitative effects of public health and health systems interventions published in 2018 and indexed in the Health Evidence and Health Systems Evidence databases. Two authors will independently screen citations for eligibility. Two authors will confirm eligibility based on full text, then extract data for 20% of reviews on the specification and use of PICO for synthesis, and the presentation and synthesis methods used (e.g. statistical synthesis methods, tabulation, visual displays, structured summary). The remaining reviews will be confirmed as eligible and data extracted by a single author. We will use descriptive statistics to summarise the specification of methods and their use in practice. We will compare how clearly the PICO for synthesis is specified in reviews that primarily use meta-analysis and those that do not. Conclusion: This study will provide an understanding of current practice in two important aspects of the synthesis process, enabling future research to test the feasibility and impact of different approaches.

Download Full-text

Taking health systems research syntheses to the next level: overviews of systematic reviews

Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews ◽

10.1002/14651858.ed000123 ◽

2017 ◽

Author(s):

M Kent Ranson ◽

David B Evans

Keyword(s):

Health Systems ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Health Systems Research ◽

Systems Research ◽

Overviews Of Systematic Reviews

Download Full-text

Systematic Review and its Relationship with Evidence-Based Practice in Health

Revista Latino-Americana de Enfermagem ◽

10.1590/s0104-11692010000400023 ◽

2010 ◽

Vol 18 (4) ◽

pp. 824-831 ◽

Cited By ~ 4

Author(s):

Eugenia Urra Medina ◽

René Mauricio Barría Pailaquilén

Keyword(s):

Systematic Review ◽

Latin America ◽

Systematic Reviews ◽

Evidence Based Practice ◽

Clinical Effectiveness ◽

Health Professions ◽

Health Interventions ◽

Evidence Based ◽

The World

Systematic reviews (SR) have gained relevance in the world and Latin America because of their credibility in the search, compilation, arranging and analysis of the information obtained from research about health interventions, during a period of time. Consequently, evidence-based practice uses SR as a way to capture the best evidence of clinical effectiveness. This article reviews SR methodology, process, and its usefulness in health professions like nursing and medicine.

Download Full-text