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

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.

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

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.

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

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carole Lunny ◽  
Jia He Zhang ◽  
Alyssa Chen ◽  
Trish Neelakant ◽  
Gavindeep Shinger ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Research Study ◽  
Health Interventions ◽  
Targeted Intervention ◽  
Complete Representation ◽  
Research Waste ◽  
Icd 10 ◽  
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 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.

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

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.

scholarly journals Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis in Spine Surgery—How Good Are They in Methodological Quality? A Systematic Review

2020 ◽  
pp. 219256822090681 ◽  
Author(s):  
Muthu Sathish ◽  
Ramakrishnan Eswar
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Review ◽  
Spine Surgery ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Methodological Quality ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Critical Flaw ◽  
Meta Analyses

Study Design: Systematic review. Objectives: To assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery over the past 2 decades. Materials and Methods: We conducted independent and in duplicate systematic review of the published systematic reviews and meta-analyses between 2000 and 2019 from PubMed Central and Cochrane Database pertaining to spine surgery involving surgical intervention. We searched bibliographies to identify additional relevant studies. Methodological quality was evaluated with AMSTAR score and graded with AMSTAR 2 criteria. Results: A total of 96 reviews met the eligibility criteria, with mean AMSTAR score of 7.51 (SD = 1.98). Based on AMSTAR 2 criteria, 13.5% (n = 13) and 18.7% (n = 18) of the studies had high and moderate level of confidence of results, respectively, without any critical flaws. A total of 29.1% (n = 28) of the studies had at least 1 critical flaw and 38.5% (n = 37) of the studies had more than 1 critical flaw, so that their results have low and critically low confidence, respectively. Failure to analyze the conflict of interest of authors of primary studies included in review and lack of list of excluded studies with justification were the most common critical flaw. Regression analysis demonstrated that studies with funding and studies published in recent years were significantly associated with higher methodological quality. Conclusion: Despite improvement in methodological quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses in spine surgery in current decade, a substantial proportion continue to show critical flaws. With increasing number of review articles in spine surgery, stringent measures must be taken to adhere to methodological quality by following PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines to attain higher standards of evidence in published literature.

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 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 Evidências sobre o isolamento social em pacientes com exsudato em feridas neoplásicas: revisão integrativa

2019 ◽  
Vol 81 (19) ◽  
Author(s):  
Willian Alves dos Santos ◽  
Patricia dos Santos Claro Fuly ◽  
Mauro Leonardo Salvador Caldeira dos Santos ◽  
Marise Dutra Souto ◽  
Caroline Marques Reis ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Social Isolation ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Medical Literature ◽  
Scientific Evidence ◽  
Psychosocial Aspects ◽  
Literature Analysis ◽  
Microsoft Excel ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
On Line

Objetiva-se identificar as evidências científicas sobre o isolamento social em pacientes com feridas neoplásicasexsudativas. Revisão integrativa realizada nas bases de dados da Biblioteca Virtual de Saúde (BVS) e PubMed: LiteraturaLatino Americana e do Caribe em Ciências da Saúde (LILACS), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval Sistem on-line(MEDLINE) e Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (COCHRANE) com a questão norteadora: quais são as evidênciascientíficas sobre o isolamento social em pacientes com feridas neoplásicas exsudativas? Utilizou-se estratégia PICOcom recorte temporal de 2002 a 2014, nos idiomas português, inglês e espanhol. As informações foram tabuladas emprograma Microsoft Excel® e processadas a partir da média aritmética descritiva simples, frequência absoluta e relativa.Identificaram-se 288 artigos em sua totalidade. Após aplicação dos critérios de elegibilidade, foram selecionadas 23evidências científicas avaliadas a partir da categoria: os principais aspectos psicossociais prejudicados pelo exsudatoem pacientes com feridas neoplásicas. Concluí-se que o exsudato é um dos sintomas que interfere negativamente nosaspectos psicossociais do paciente com feridas neoplásicas, causando alteração da imagem corporal, perda dos limitesfísicos, ansiedade e depressão, fatores que favorecem diretamente o isolamento social.Palavras-chave: Cuidados Paliativos; Enfermagem Oncológica; Ferimentos e Lesões; Exsudatos e Transudatos;Isolamento Social. ABSTRACTThe aim is to identify the scientific evidence on social isolation in patients with exudative neoplastic wounds.An integrative literature review conducted in the Virtual Health Library databases (VHS) and PubMed: LiteratureLatin American and Caribbean Health Sciences (LILACS), Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System online(MEDLINE) and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (COCHRANE), with the guiding question: what are thescientific evidences about the social isolation in patients with exudative neoplastic wounds? We used a PICOstrategy with a temporal cut from 2002 to 2014, in Portuguese, English and Spanish languages. The informationwas tabulated in Microsoft Excel® program and processed from simple descriptive arithmetic mean, absoluteand relative frequency. It was identified 288 articles in their entirety. After applying the eligibility criteria, wasselected 23 scientific evidence evaluated from the category: the main psychosocial aspects impaired by exudatein patients with neoplastic wounds. It concludes that exudate is one of the symptoms that negatively interferesthe psychosocial aspects of the patient with neoplastic wounds, causing alterations in body image, loss of physicallimits, anxiety and depression, factors that directly favor social isolation.Keywords: Palliative Care; Oncology Nursing; Wounds and Injuries; Exudates and Transudates; Social Isolation.

scholarly journals Impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects in randomised clinical trials: meta-epidemiological study

BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. l6802 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helene Moustgaard ◽  
Gemma L Clayton ◽  
Hayley E Jones ◽  
Isabelle Boutron ◽  
Lars Jørgensen ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Epidemiological Study ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Treatment Effects ◽  
Healthcare Providers ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Double Blind ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Meta Analyses ◽  
The Impact

Abstract Objectives To study the impact of blinding on estimated treatment effects, and their variation between trials; differentiating between blinding of patients, healthcare providers, and observers; detection bias and performance bias; and types of outcome (the MetaBLIND study). Design Meta-epidemiological study. Data source Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (2013-14). Eligibility criteria for selecting studies Meta-analyses with both blinded and non-blinded trials on any topic. Review methods Blinding status was retrieved from trial publications and authors, and results retrieved automatically from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Bayesian hierarchical models estimated the average ratio of odds ratios (ROR), and estimated the increases in heterogeneity between trials, for non-blinded trials (or of unclear status) versus blinded trials. Secondary analyses adjusted for adequacy of concealment of allocation, attrition, and trial size, and explored the association between outcome subjectivity (high, moderate, low) and average bias. An ROR lower than 1 indicated exaggerated effect estimates in trials without blinding. Results The study included 142 meta-analyses (1153 trials). The ROR for lack of blinding of patients was 0.91 (95% credible interval 0.61 to 1.34) in 18 meta-analyses with patient reported outcomes, and 0.98 (0.69 to 1.39) in 14 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of healthcare providers was 1.01 (0.84 to 1.19) in 29 meta-analyses with healthcare provider decision outcomes (eg, readmissions), and 0.97 (0.64 to 1.45) in 13 meta-analyses with outcomes reported by blinded patients or observers. The ROR for lack of blinding of observers was 1.01 (0.86 to 1.18) in 46 meta-analyses with subjective observer reported outcomes, with no clear impact of degree of subjectivity. Information was insufficient to determine whether lack of blinding was associated with increased heterogeneity between trials. The ROR for trials not reported as double blind versus those that were double blind was 1.02 (0.90 to 1.13) in 74 meta-analyses. Conclusion No evidence was found for an average difference in estimated treatment effect between trials with and without blinded patients, healthcare providers, or outcome assessors. These results could reflect that blinding is less important than often believed or meta-epidemiological study limitations, such as residual confounding or imprecision. At this stage, replication of this study is suggested and blinding should remain a methodological safeguard in trials.

scholarly journals Anxiety and depression among healthcare workers during the COVID-19 pandemic: a systematic umbrella review of the global evidence

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (9) ◽  
pp. e054528
Author(s):  
Ritin Fernandez ◽  
Nqobile Sikhosana ◽  
Heidi Green ◽  
Elizabeth J Halcomb ◽  
Rebekkah Middleton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Healthcare Workers ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Anxiety And Depression ◽  
Umbrella Review ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Cochrane Database ◽  
Prevalence Of Depression ◽  
Registration Number ◽  
Critical Appraisal Tool

ObjectivesTo summarise the evidence relating to the prevalence of anxiety and depression among healthcare workers (HCWs) during the COVID-19 pandemic.DesignAn umbrella review of systematic reviews was undertaken using the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methods.Data sourcesThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews, JBI Evidence Synthesis, MEDLINE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, Embase and CINAHL were searched in March 2021 for reviews published in English.Eligibility criteriaSystematic reviews reporting the prevalence of anxiety and depression among HCWs during the COVID-19 pandemic. Two researchers screened each abstract and independently reviewed full text articles. Study quality was assessed using the JBI critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews, and the degree of overlap in primary studies was calculated.ResultsTen systematic reviews (100 unique studies), including 169 157 HCWs from 35 countries were included. The prevalence of anxiety among all HCWs ranged from 22.2% (95% CI 21.3% to 23.1%) to 33.0% (95% CI 31.9% to 34.1%). The prevalence of anxiety among physicians (n=5820) was reported to be between 17% and 19.8% and for nurses (n=14 938) between 22.8% and 27%. The prevalence of depression among all HCWs ranged from 17.9% (95% CI 17.1% to 18.8%) to 36% (95% CI 34.9% to 37.1%). The prevalence of depression among physicians (n=643) and nurses (n=8063) was reported to be 40.4% and 28%, respectively.ConclusionsThere is wide variation evident in the presence of anxiety and depression among HCWs. In particular, the prevalence of depression among physicians was high. Strategies to reduce the incidence of anxiety and depression are urgently required.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42021238960.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document