Bibliometric study of 'overviews of systematic reviews' of health interventions: Evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor

Exploring decision-makers' challenges and strategies when selecting multiple systematic reviews: insights for AI decision support tools in healthcare

BACKGROUND

Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision-makers may struggle with comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We aimed to understand how healthcare decision-makers (eg, practitioners, policymakers, researchers) use SRs to inform decision-making and to explore the potential role of a proposed artificial intelligence (AI) tool to assist in critical appraisal and choosing among SRs.

METHODS

We developed a survey with 21 open and closed questions. We followed a knowledge translation plan to disseminate the survey through social media and professional networks.

RESULTS

Our survey response rate was lower than expected (7.9% of distributed emails). Of the 684 respondents, 58.2% identified as researchers, 37.1% as practitioners, 19.2% as students and 13.5% as policymakers. Respondents frequently sought out SRs (97.1%) as a source of evidence to inform decision-making. They frequently (97.9%) found more than one SR on a given topic of interest to them. Just over half (50.8%) struggled to choose the most trustworthy SR among multiple. These difficulties related to lack of time (55.2%), or difficulties comparing due to varying methodological quality of SRs (54.2%), differences in results and conclusions (49.7%) or variation in the included studies (44.6%). Respondents compared SRs based on the relevance to their question of interest, methodological quality, and recency of the SR search. Most respondents (87.0%) were interested in an AI tool to help appraise and compare SRs.

CONCLUSIONS

Given the identified barriers of using SR evidence, an AI tool to facilitate comparison of the relevance of SRs, the search and methodological quality, could help users efficiently choose among SRs and make healthcare decisions.

"Over-reviewing" of research? An analysis of orthodontic reviews

INTRODUCTION

Research overviews may be undertaken to identify gaps in the literature, evaluate existing systematic reviews (SRs), and summarize evidence. This paper aims to profile overviews that have been conducted in orthodontics and related interventions since 2012 and to evaluate the degree of overlap among these overviews.

METHODS

Overviews published between January 1, 2012 and June 20, 2023 were identified using an electronic search involving Google Scholar and PubMed. A descriptive summary was produced, and citation matrices were used to evaluate the percentage of overlap between overviews using corrected covered area and covered area. This was classified as slight, moderate, high, or very high.

RESULTS

A total of 35 overviews were identified across a wide range of topics. Eight overviews included <10 SRs; 21 had 10-20 SRs; and 6 included >20 SRs (median no. of SRs per overview, 15; range, 3-62). Meta-analysis was conducted in only 5 overviews. Overlap between overviews on the same topic ranged from slight (2.7%) to very high (53.8%).

CONCLUSIONS

Almost all overview topics address treatments and their effects, with a wide variation in the number and quality of SRs included. There is considerable overlap in some orthodontic overviews, suggesting unnecessary duplication and research waste. Researchers should be encouraged to focus on primary data collection to add more high-quality data to SRs, which will ultimately enhance the yield from secondary and tertiary orthodontic research.

Mapping and systematic appraisal of umbrella reviews in epidemiological research: a protocol for a meta-epidemiological study

INTRODUCTION

Umbrella review is one of the terms used to describe an overview of systematic reviews. During the last years, a rapid increase in the number of umbrella reviews on epidemiological studies has been observed, but there is no systematic assessment of their methodological and reporting characteristics. Our study aims to fill this gap by performing a systematic mapping of umbrella reviews in epidemiological research.

METHODS

We will perform a meta-epidemiological study including a systematic review in MEDLINE and EMBASE to identify all the umbrella reviews that focused on systematic reviews of epidemiological studies and were published from inception until December 31, 2022. We will consider eligible any research article which was designed as an umbrella review and summarized systematic reviews and meta-analyses of epidemiological studies. From each eligible article, we will extract information about the research topic, the methodological characteristics, and the reporting characteristics. We will examine whether the umbrella reviews assessed the strength of the available evidence and the rigor of the included systematic reviews. We will also examine whether these characteristics change across time.

DISCUSSION

Our study will systematically appraise the methodological and reporting characteristics of published umbrella reviews in epidemiological literature. The findings of our study can be used to improve the design and conduct of future umbrella reviews, to derive a standardized set of reporting and methodological guidelines for umbrella reviews, and to allow further meta-epidemiological work.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

osf.io/sxzc6.

metaumbrella: the first comprehensive suite to perform data analysis in umbrella reviews with stratification of the evidence

OBJECTIVE

Umbrella reviews are a new form of literature review that summarises the strength and/or quality of the evidence from all systematic reviews and meta-analyses conducted on a broad topic. This type of review thus provides an exhaustive examination of a vast body of information, providing the highest synthesis of knowledge. A critical strength of umbrella reviews is recalculating the meta-analytic estimates within a uniform framework to allow a consistent evidence stratification. To our best knowledge, there is no comprehensive package or software to conduct umbrella reviews.

METHODS

The R package metaumbrella accomplishes this aim by building on three core functions that (1) automatically perform all required calculations in an umbrella review (including but not limited to pairwise meta-analyses), (2) stratify evidence according to various classification criteria and (3) generate a visual representation of the results. In addition, this package allows flexible inputs for each review or meta-analysis analysed (eg, means plus SD, or effect size estimate and CI) and customisation (eg, stratification criteria following Ioannidis, algorithmic GRADE or personalised classification).

RESULTS

The R package metaumbrella thus provides the first comprehensive range of facilities to perform umbrella reviews with stratification of the evidence.

CONCLUSION

To facilitate the use of this package, even for researchers unfamiliar with R, we also provide a JAMOVI module and an open-access, browser-based graphical interface that allow use of the core functions of the package with a few mouse clicks.

Types and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews in health care: a methodological study with published examples

OBJECTIVES

To provide a descriptive insight into the different types of research questions/objectives and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews, supplemented by representative examples from the health care literature.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched in methodological articles for information on types and methodologies used in overviews and we explored the typology of reviews to identify similar types in literature of overviews. We categorized the types of overviews based on the research question/objective and the methodological approach used. Indicative examples for each category were selected from a sample of 2,121 overviews that were retrieved between 2000 and 2022 from MEDLINE, Scopus, and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews.

RESULTS

Based on type of research question, overviews were classified as overviews of reviews of interventions, associations, prediction, diagnostic accuracy, prevalence/incidence, experiences/views, economic evaluation, and measurement properties. Based on the methodological approach, we identified a variety of methods (systematic, living, rapid, scoping, evidence mapping, framework, and methodological) used in overviews.

CONCLUSION

The proposed classification and examples provide an essential starting point for future theory-building research on typologies and study designs of overviews of reviews. It is important for methodologists to make vigorous effort to create consensus-based methodological and reporting guidelines to cover these diverse types and key methodological challenges.

How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm

Introduction

The exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SRs) presents challenges for decision makers seeking to answer clinical, public health or policy questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad et al. to choose the best SR across multiple. Our study aims to replicate author assessments using the Jadad algorithm to determine: (i) if we chose the same SR as the authors; and (ii) if we reach the same results.

Methods

We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of SRs. We included any study using the Jadad algorithm. We used consensus building strategies to operationalise the algorithm and to ensure a consistent approach to interpretation.

Results

We identified 21 studies that used the Jadad algorithm to choose one or more SRs. In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad assessment and ultimately chose a different SR than the authors. Overall, 18 out of the 21 (86%) independent Jadad assessments agreed in direction of the findings despite 13 having chosen a different SR.

Conclusions

Our results suggest that the Jadad algorithm is not reproducible between users as there are no prescriptive instructions about how to operationalise the algorithm. In the absence of a validated algorithm, we recommend that healthcare providers, policy makers, patients and researchers address conflicts between review findings by choosing the SR(s) with meta-analysis of RCTs that most closely resemble their clinical, public health, or policy question, are the most recent, comprehensive (i.e. number of included RCTs), and at the lowest risk of bias.

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12874-022-01750-2.

This is the first empirical study to replicate Jadad algorithm assessments to evaluate discordance across systematic reviews.

In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad algorithm assessment and ultimately chose a different systematic review than the authors.

When assessing systematic reviews using the Jadad algorithm, some steps of the Jadad algorithm were vague in description, making it difficult to operationalise, interpret, and use.

The Jadad algorithm has several limitations as it does not account for the last literature search of the systematic review and publication recency of included trials.

To assess discordance in the absence of an algorithm, we recommend decision makers consider relevance (objectives that most closely resemble their clinical question), recency (dates of search), comprehensiveness (most trials), and risk of bias (lowest risk of bias SR) when choosing one systematic review across multiple.

Reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions: development of the PRIOR statement

OBJECTIVE

To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

DESIGN

Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement.

PARTICIPANTS

Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist.

SETTING

International consensus.

INTERVENTION

Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline.

RESULTS

From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

Identifying and addressing conflicting results across multiple discordant systematic reviews on the same question: protocol for a replication study of the Jadad algorithm

INTRODUCTION

An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (1) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (2) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency and comprehensiveness, and (3) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called discordant reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors' Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors' assessment.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs.