Abstract
Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the completeness of reporting of methods in overviews. Study Design and Setting: Assessment of the adequacy of reporting of methods in a random sample of 50 overviews was based on a published framework of methods for conducting overviews. Descriptive summary statistics were presented. Results: We screened 848 randomly selected abstracts to obtain the required 50 overviews. Overviews included a median of 13 (interquartile range 7–32) systematic reviews (SRs), 22% reported working from a protocol, 36% reported using reporting standards (e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and 34% reported using methodological guidance (e.g., Cochrane Handbook). Methods common to both overviews and SRs of primary studies were reported in majority of overviews (e.g., 56% framed the overview question by Population, Intervention(s), Comparison(s), Outcome(s) [PICO] elements; 44% reported eligibility criteria based on PICO, and 76% reported assessing the risk of bias of SRs), except for methods for summarizing evidence (20%) or statistical synthesis (26%). A minority reported methods for handling unique aspects of overviews (e.g., overlap in the primary studies [30%], discrepant or missing data [14%], and discordant results/conclusions across reviews [20%]). Conclusion: Reporting of methods unique to overviews requires improvement. Our findings provide a benchmark of the completeness of reporting and may inform guidance on the conduct and reporting of overviews.
| Original language | English |
|---|---|
| Pages (from-to) | 69-85 |
| Number of pages | 17 |
| Journal | Journal of Clinical Epidemiology |
| Volume | 118 |
| DOIs | |
| Publication status | Published - 1 Feb 2020 |
Keywords
- Meta-review
- Overview methods
- Overviews of systematic reviews
- Reporting
- Systematic review methods
- Umbrella
Cite this
}
Overviews of reviews incompletely report methods for handling overlapping, discordant, and problematic data. / Lunny, Carole; Brennan, Sue E.; Reid, Jane; McDonald, Steve; McKenzie, Joanne E.
In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 118, 01.02.2020, p. 69-85.Research output: Contribution to journal › Review Article › Research › peer-review
TY - JOUR
T1 - Overviews of reviews incompletely report methods for handling overlapping, discordant, and problematic data
AU - Lunny, Carole
AU - Brennan, Sue E.
AU - Reid, Jane
AU - McDonald, Steve
AU - McKenzie, Joanne E.
PY - 2020/2/1
Y1 - 2020/2/1
N2 - Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the completeness of reporting of methods in overviews. Study Design and Setting: Assessment of the adequacy of reporting of methods in a random sample of 50 overviews was based on a published framework of methods for conducting overviews. Descriptive summary statistics were presented. Results: We screened 848 randomly selected abstracts to obtain the required 50 overviews. Overviews included a median of 13 (interquartile range 7–32) systematic reviews (SRs), 22% reported working from a protocol, 36% reported using reporting standards (e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and 34% reported using methodological guidance (e.g., Cochrane Handbook). Methods common to both overviews and SRs of primary studies were reported in majority of overviews (e.g., 56% framed the overview question by Population, Intervention(s), Comparison(s), Outcome(s) [PICO] elements; 44% reported eligibility criteria based on PICO, and 76% reported assessing the risk of bias of SRs), except for methods for summarizing evidence (20%) or statistical synthesis (26%). A minority reported methods for handling unique aspects of overviews (e.g., overlap in the primary studies [30%], discrepant or missing data [14%], and discordant results/conclusions across reviews [20%]). Conclusion: Reporting of methods unique to overviews requires improvement. Our findings provide a benchmark of the completeness of reporting and may inform guidance on the conduct and reporting of overviews.
AB - Objectives: The aim of the study was to assess the completeness of reporting of methods in overviews. Study Design and Setting: Assessment of the adequacy of reporting of methods in a random sample of 50 overviews was based on a published framework of methods for conducting overviews. Descriptive summary statistics were presented. Results: We screened 848 randomly selected abstracts to obtain the required 50 overviews. Overviews included a median of 13 (interquartile range 7–32) systematic reviews (SRs), 22% reported working from a protocol, 36% reported using reporting standards (e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and 34% reported using methodological guidance (e.g., Cochrane Handbook). Methods common to both overviews and SRs of primary studies were reported in majority of overviews (e.g., 56% framed the overview question by Population, Intervention(s), Comparison(s), Outcome(s) [PICO] elements; 44% reported eligibility criteria based on PICO, and 76% reported assessing the risk of bias of SRs), except for methods for summarizing evidence (20%) or statistical synthesis (26%). A minority reported methods for handling unique aspects of overviews (e.g., overlap in the primary studies [30%], discrepant or missing data [14%], and discordant results/conclusions across reviews [20%]). Conclusion: Reporting of methods unique to overviews requires improvement. Our findings provide a benchmark of the completeness of reporting and may inform guidance on the conduct and reporting of overviews.
KW - Meta-review
KW - Overview methods
KW - Overviews of systematic reviews
KW - Reporting
KW - Systematic review methods
KW - Umbrella
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076001101&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.025
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.025
M3 - Review Article
C2 - 31606430
VL - 118
SP - 69
EP - 85
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
SN - 0895-4356
ER -