Department of Pediatrics, Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada.
Clinical Pharmacology Unit, Instituto de Medicina Molecular, University of Lisbon, Lisbon, Portugal.
Syst Rev. 2019 Jan 11;8(1):18. doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0914-3.
Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews (SRs) to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Overviews may identify multiple SRs that examine the same intervention for the same condition and include some, but not all, of the same primary studies. There is currently limited guidance on whether and how to include these overlapping SRs in overviews. Our objectives were to assess how different inclusion decisions in overviews of healthcare interventions affect their comprehensiveness and results, and document challenges encountered when making different inclusion decisions in overviews.
We used five inclusion decisions to conduct overviews across seven topic areas, resulting in 35 overviews. The inclusion decisions were (1) include all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs, (2) include only Cochrane SRs, or consider all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but include only non-overlapping SRs, and in the case of overlapping SRs, select (3) the Cochrane SR, (4) the most recent SR (by publication or search date), or (5) the highest quality SR (assessed using AMSTAR). For each topic area and inclusion scenario, we documented the amount of outcome data lost and changed and the challenges involved.
When conducting overviews, including only Cochrane SRs, instead of all SRs, often led to loss/change of outcome data (median 31% of outcomes lost/changed; range 0-100%). Considering all Cochrane and non-Cochrane SRs but including only non-overlapping SRs and selecting the Cochrane SR for groups of overlapping SRs (instead of the most recent or highest quality SRs) allowed the most outcome data to be recaptured (median 42% of lost/changed outcome recaptured; range 28-86%). Across all inclusion scenarios, challenges were encountered when extracting data from overlapping SRs.
Overlapping SRs present a methodological challenge for overview authors. This study demonstrates that different inclusion decisions affect the comprehensiveness and results of overviews in different ways, depending in part on whether Cochrane SRs examine all intervention comparisons relevant to the overview. Study results were used to develop an evidence-based decision tool that provides practical guidance for overview authors.
综述的概述(概述)从多个系统评价(SR)中编译信息,为决策提供有关证据的综合信息。概述可能会确定多个针对相同条件和干预措施的 SR,并包括其中一些,但不是全部,相同的主要研究。目前,对于是否以及如何将这些重叠的 SR 纳入概述中,指导有限。我们的目标是评估医疗保健干预措施概述中不同的纳入决策如何影响其全面性和结果,并记录在概述中做出不同纳入决策时遇到的挑战。
我们使用五个纳入决策在七个主题领域进行了综述,共产生了 35 个综述。纳入决策是:(1)纳入所有 Cochrane 和非 Cochrane SR,(2)仅纳入 Cochrane SR,或考虑所有 Cochrane 和非 Cochrane SR,但仅纳入非重叠 SR,对于重叠的 SR,选择(3) Cochrane SR,(4)最新的 SR(按发布或搜索日期),或(5)最高质量的 SR(使用 AMSTAR 评估)。对于每个主题领域和纳入情况,我们记录了丢失和更改的结果数据量以及涉及的挑战。
在进行综述时,仅纳入 Cochrane SR 而不是所有 SR 通常会导致结果数据丢失/更改(中位数丢失/更改的结果数据为 31%;范围 0-100%)。考虑所有 Cochrane 和非 Cochrane SR,但仅纳入非重叠 SR,并为重叠 SR 组选择 Cochrane SR(而不是最新或最高质量的 SR),可以最大限度地回收丢失/更改的结果数据(中位数回收丢失/更改的结果数据为 42%;范围 28-86%)。在所有纳入情况下,从重叠的 SR 中提取数据时都会遇到挑战。
重叠的 SR 对概述作者提出了方法学挑战。本研究表明,不同的纳入决策以不同的方式影响概述的全面性和结果,这在一定程度上取决于 Cochrane SR 是否检查与概述相关的所有干预比较。研究结果被用于开发一个基于证据的决策工具,为概述作者提供实用指导。