Quality and transparency of overviews of systematic reviews

Lun Li · Jinhui Tian · Hongliang Tian · Rao Sun · Yali Liu · Kehu Yang

62 citations0/0 files storedJournal of Evidence-Based Medicine

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Clinical practice guidelines implementation Delphi Technique in Research

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate the reporting and methodological quality of overviews of systematic reviews. METHOD: We developed an 18-item assessment tool for overviews of systematic reviews. We then performed a systematic search for such overviews using the terms ('overview' AND ('meta analys*' OR 'systematic review*')) OR 'umbrella review' in the title. We only included those overviews that were limited to systematic reviews or meta-analyses. Their methodological and reporting quality were assessed by two independent reviewers using the checklist, and differences were resolved by a third reviewer. Data analyses was conducted by SPSS version 15.0 for Windows. RESULTS: We identified 41 overviews of systematic reviews whose mean total reporting score was 10.78 (SD 3.84) and methodological score 3.05 (SD 2.09). Some important items were not adequately reported: only 69% reported defined eligibility criteria, 76% reported search strategy, 49% reported the process of review selection, 44% reported the data collection process, 5% reported evaluating the reporting quality, 46% reported evaluating methodological quality, and 20% reported assessing the evidence level for each outcome. CONCLUSION: The reporting and methodological quality of overviews of systematic reviews was very poor, and there is still much room for improvement. A checklist for overviews of systematic reviews should be developed and used.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 62 citations exist upstream.

References

2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration 1996Assessing the quality of reports of randomized clinical trials: Is blinding necessary?2009The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration 2009The PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration 2008Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.0.1. The Cochrane Collaboration 2007Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews 1977An Application of Hierarchical Kappa-type Statistics in the Assessment of Majority Agreement among Multiple Observers

Cited by

2018Evaluation of the reliability, usability, and applicability of AMSTAR, AMSTAR 2, and ROBIS: protocol for a descriptive analytic study 2015Retrieval of overviews of systematic reviews in MEDLINE was improved by the development of an objectively derived and validated search strategy 2018

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.