Evidence map of studies evaluating methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews of systematic reviews of interventions: rationale and design

The role of pulmonary rehabilitation in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis: An overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

The role of pulmonary rehabilitation (PR) in idiopathic pulmonary fibrosis (IPF) has been studied in several systematic reviews (SRs), but no definitive conclusions have been drawn due to the wide variation in the quality and outcomes of the studies. And there are no studies to assess the quality of relevant published SRs. This overview aims to determine the effectiveness of PR in patients with IPF and to summarize and critically evaluate the risk of bias, methodological, and evidence quality of SRs on this related topic.

METHODS

With no language restrictions, eight databases were searched from inception to March 10, 2023. The literature search, screening, and data extraction were carried out separately by two reviewers. We assessed the risk of bias using the ROBIS tool, the reporting quality using PRISMA statements, the methodological quality using AMSTAR-2, and the evidence quality using Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Seven SRs from 2018-2023 (including 1836 participants) on PR for the treatment of IPF were selected, all of which included patients with a definitive diagnosis of IPF. After strict evaluation by the ROBIS tool and AMSTAR-2 tool, 42.86% of the SRs had a high risk of bias and 85.71% of the SRs had critically low methodological quality in this overview. PR might be effective for patients with IPF on exercise capacity, quality of life, and pulmonary function-related outcomes, but we did not find high quality evidence to confirm the effectiveness.

CONCLUSION

PR may appear to be an effective and safe treatment for patients with IPF, but the results of this overview should be interpreted dialectically and with caution. Further high-quality, rigorous studies are urgently needed to draw definitive conclusions and provide scientific evidence.

Breathing Exercises in the Treatment of COPD: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background

The effectiveness of breathing exercises in the treatment of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) has been demonstrated in several systematic reviews (SRs), but a comprehensive review is still lacking. The aim of this study was to synthesize evidence from SRs, to summarise the effects of breathing exercises interventions for COPD patients.

Methods

We conducted an overview of the SRs of breathing exercises in the treatment of COPD. We include Systematic Reviews of randomized-controlled clinical trials. In the included COPD, control of breathing exercises alone was the only variable and no restriction was placed on relevant outcome measures. The SRs were screened by computer retrieval from the Chinese National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), WanFang database, Chinese Science and Technology Journal Database (CSTJ), Chinese Biological Medicine (CBM), MEDLINE (PubMed), Embase, Cochrane library, and Web of Science. The Risk of Bias in Systematic reviews (ROBIS) tool, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) statement, a Measure Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) 2, and the Grades of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) were used to evaluate the risk of bias, reporting quality, methodology quality, and evidence quality.

Results

Nine SRs met the inclusion criteria and were included in the overview, 4 SRs in Chinese, and 3 SRs in English. All the SRs were published between 2015-2021. According to the ROBIS tool, 4 SRs (57.14%) were rated as low risk of bias. The PRISMA scale showed that 5 SRs had some defects, and 2 SRs were relatively complete. Reporting deficiencies exist primarily in protocol and registration (28.6%), search (42.9%), risk of bias across studies (0%), additional analyses (42.9%), and funding (28.6%). Based on the AMSTAR-2 scale, 3 SRs were low quality, and the other 4 SRs were very low. The result of evidence quality assessment showed that among the 34 outcomes involved in the 7 studies, 19 were low-level outcomes, 15 were very low-level outcomes, and there were no moderate and high-level quality outcomes. Limitations and publication bias were two major factors that reduced the quality of evidence.

Conclusion

Breathing exercises in certain can improve pulmonary function, exercise endurance, dyspnea, quality of life, and respiratory muscle strength of COPD patients. However, there is an urgent need for high-quality studies to guide clinical practice due to certain deficiencies in reporting quality and the low quality of methodology and outcomes.

Methodological approaches for assessing certainty of the evidence in umbrella reviews: A scoping review

INTRODUCTION

The number of umbrella reviews (URs) that compiled systematic reviews and meta-analysis (SR-MAs) has increased dramatically over recent years. No formal guidance for assessing the certainty of evidence in URs of meta-analyses exists nowadays. URs of non-interventional studies help establish evidence linking exposure to certain health outcomes in a population. This study aims to identify and describe the methodological approaches for assessing the certainty of the evidence in published URs of non-interventions.

METHODS

We searched from 3 databases including PubMed, Embase, and The Cochrane Library from May 2010 to September 2021. We included URs that included SR-MAs of studies with non-interventions. Two independent reviewers screened and extracted data. We compared URs characteristics stratified by publication year, journal ranking, journal impact factor using Chi-square test.

RESULTS

Ninety-nine URs have been included. Most were SR-MAs of observational studies evaluating association of non-modifiable risk factors with some outcomes. Only half (56.6%) of the included URs assessed the certainty of the evidence. The most frequently used criteria is credibility assessment (80.4%), followed by GRADE approach (14.3%). URs published in journals with higher journal impact factor assessed certainty of evidence than URs published in lower impact group (77.1 versus 37.2% respectively, p < 0.05). However, criteria for credibility assessment used in four of the seven URs that were published in top ranking journals were slightly varied.

CONCLUSIONS

Half of URs of MAs of non-interventional studies have assessed the certainty of the evidence, in which criteria for credibility assessment was the commonly used method. Guidance and standards are required to ensure the methodological rigor and consistency of certainty of evidence assessment for URs.

The effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following Emergency Department discharge: umbrella review

Background

Population ageing is increasing rapidly worldwide. Older adults are frequent users of health care services including the Emergency Department (ED) and experience a number of adverse outcomes following an ED visit. Adverse outcomes include functional decline, unplanned hospital admission and an ED revisit. Given these adverse outcomes a number of interventions have been examined to improve the outcomes of older adults following presentation to the ED. The aim of this umbrella review was to evaluate the effectiveness of ED interventions in reducing adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the ED.

Methods

Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials investigating ED interventions for older adults presenting to the ED exploring clinical, patient experience and healthcare utilisation outcomes were included. A comprehensive search strategy was employed in eleven databases and the PROSPERO register up until June 2020. Grey literature was also searched. Quality was assessed using the A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 tool. Overlap between systematic reviews was assessed using a matrix of evidence table. An algorithm to assign the Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation to assess the strength of evidence was applied for all outcomes.

Results

Nine systematic reviews including 29 randomised controlled trials were included. Interventions comprised of solely ED-based or transitional interventions. The specific interventions delivered were highly variable. There was high overlap and low methodological quality of the trials informing the systematic reviews. There is low quality evidence to support ED interventions in reducing functional decline, improving patient experience and improving quality of life. The quality of evidence of the effectiveness of ED interventions to reduce mortality and ED revisits varied from very low to moderate. Results were presented narratively and summary of evidence tables created.

Conclusion

Older adults are the most important emerging group in healthcare for several economic, social and political reasons. The existing evidence for the effectiveness of ED interventions for older adults is limited. This umbrella review highlights the challenge of synthesising evidence due to significant heterogeneity in methods, intervention content and reporting of outcomes. Higher quality intervention studies in line with current geriatric medicine research guidelines are recommended, rather than the publication of further systematic reviews.

Trial registration

UMBRELLA REVIEW REGISTRATION: PROSPERO (CRD42020145315).

Supplementary Information

The online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1186/s12877-022-03007-5.

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta-research study of research waste

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. MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for overviews that: synthesized 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. 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. 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.

Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews

BACKGROUND

Overviews often identify and synthesise a large number of systematic reviews on the same topic, which is likely to lead to overlap (i.e. duplication) in primary studies across the reviews. Using a primary study result multiple times in the same analysis overstates its sample size and number of events, falsely leading to greater precision in the analysis. This paper aims to: (a) describe types of overlapping data that arise from the same primary studies reported across multiple reviews, (b) describe methods to identify and explain overlap of primary study data, and (c) present six case studies illustrating different approaches to manage overlap.

METHODS

We first updated the search in PubMed for methods from the MOoR framework relating to overlap of primary studies. One author screened the studies titles and abstracts, and any full-text articles retrieved, extracted methods data relating to overlap of primary studies and mapped it to the overlap methods from the MOoR framework. We also describe six case studies as examples of overviews that use specific overlap methods across the steps in the conduct of an overview. For each case study, we discuss potential methodological implications in terms of limitations, efficiency, usability, and resource use.

RESULTS

Nine methods studies were found and mapped to the methods identified by the MOoR framework to address overlap. Overlap methods were mapped across four steps in the conduct of an overview - the eligibility criteria step, the data extraction step, the assessment of risk of bias step, and the synthesis step. Our overview case studies used multiple methods to reduce overlap at different steps in the conduct of an overview.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study underlines that there is currently no standard methodological approach to deal with overlap in primary studies across reviews. The level of complexity when dealing with overlap can vary depending on the yield, trends and patterns of the included literature and the scope of the overview question. Choosing a method might be dependent on the number of included reviews and their primary studies. Gaps in evaluation of methods to address overlap were found and further investigation in this area is needed.

Over half of clinical practice guidelines use non-systematic methods to inform recommendations: A methods study

INTRODUCTION

Assessing the process used to synthesize the evidence in clinical practice guidelines enables users to determine the trustworthiness of the recommendations. Clinicians are increasingly dependent on guidelines to keep up with vast quantities of medical literature, and guidelines are followed to avoid malpractice suits. We aimed to assess whether systematic methods were used when synthesizing the evidence for guidelines; and to determine the type of review cited in support of recommendations.

METHODS

Guidelines published in 2017 and 2018 were retrieved from the TRIP and Epistemonikos databases. We randomly sorted and sequentially screened clinical guidelines on all topics to select the first 50 that met our inclusion criteria. Our primary outcomes were the number of guidelines using either a systematic or non-systematic process to gather, assess, and synthesise evidence; and the numbers of recommendations within guidelines based on different types of evidence synthesis (systematic or non-systematic reviews). If a review was cited, we looked for evidence that it was critically appraised, and recorded which quality assessment tool was used. Finally, we examined the relation between the use of the GRADE approach, systematic review process, and type of funder.

RESULTS

Of the 50 guidelines, 17 (34%) systematically synthesised the evidence to inform recommendations. These 17 guidelines clearly reported their objectives and eligibility criteria, conducted comprehensive search strategies, and assessed the quality of the studies. Of the 29/50 guidelines that included reviews, 6 (21%) assessed the risk of bias of the review. The quality of primary studies was reported in 30/50 (60%) guidelines.

CONCLUSIONS

High quality, systematic review products provide the best available evidence to inform guideline recommendations. Using non-systematic methods compromises the validity and reliability of the evidence used to inform guideline recommendations, leading to potentially misleading and untrustworthy results.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following emergency department discharge: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

Background: Older adults are frequent users of Emergency departments (ED) and this trend will continue due to population ageing and the associated increase in healthcare needs. Older adults are vulnerable to adverse outcomes following ED discharge. A number of heterogeneous interventions have been developed and implemented to improve clinical outcomes among this cohort. A growing number of systematic reviews have synthesised evidence regarding ED interventions using varying methodologies. This overview aims to synthesise the totality of evidence in order to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the ED. Methods: To identify relevant reviews, the following databases will be searched: Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Databases of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PubMed, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Ageline, Embase, PEDro, Scopus, CINAHL and the PROSPERO register. The search for grey literature will include Open Grey and Grey Literature Reports. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials will be analysed to assess the effect of ED interventions on clinical and process outcomes in older adults. Methodological quality of the reviews will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool. The review will be reported in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Summary of findings will include a hierarchical rank of interventions based on estimates of effects and the quality of evidence. Discussion: This overview is required given the number of systematic reviews published regarding the effectiveness of various ED interventions for older adults at risk of adverse outcomes following discharge from the ED. There is a need to examine the totality of evidence using rigorous analytic techniques to inform best care and potentially develop a hierarchy of treatment options. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020145315 (28/04/2020).

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following emergency department discharge: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews

Background: Older adults are frequent users of Emergency departments (ED) and this trend will continue due to population ageing and the associated increase in healthcare needs. Older adults are vulnerable to adverse outcomes following ED discharge. A number of heterogeneous interventions have been developed and implemented to improve clinical outcomes among this cohort. A growing number of systematic reviews have synthesised evidence regarding ED interventions using varying methodologies. This overview aims to synthesise the totality of evidence in order to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the ED. Methods: To identify relevant reviews, the following databases will be searched: Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Databases of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PubMed, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Ageline, Embase, PEDro, Scopus, CINAHL and the PROSPERO register. The search for grey literature will include Open Grey and Grey Literature Reports. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials will be analysed to assess the effect of ED interventions on clinical and process outcomes in older adults. Methodological quality of the reviews will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool. The review will be reported in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Summary of findings will include a hierarchical rank of interventions based on estimates of effects and the quality of evidence. Discussion: This overview is required given the number of systematic reviews published regarding the effectiveness of various ED interventions for older adults at risk of adverse outcomes following discharge from the ED. There is a need to examine the totality of evidence using rigorous analytic techniques to inform best care and potentially develop a hierarchy of treatment options. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020145315 (28/04/2020).

Safety and efficacy of stem cell therapy: an overview protocol on published meta-analyses and evidence mapping

Background

Stem cell therapy (SCT) is an emerging and promising treatment measure for many conditions (e.g., chronic liver disease, diabetes mellitus, and knee osteoarthritis). Although there are numerous meta-analyses (MAs) concerning SCT, the quality of these MAs and the efficacy and safety data for SCT reported in these MAs remain unknown. Therefore, it is of utmost importance to conduct an overview of existing MAs concerning SCT for evaluating these parameters.

Methods

We will systematically search PubMed and EMBASE databases from inception to October 2020 for identifying MAs of SCT published in English. Two independent reviewers will select appropriate MAs against the predefined eligibility criteria. The efficacy and safety data of SCT reported in MAs will be descriptively summarized. Following this, the reporting quality and methodological quality of included MAs will be appraised using Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-analyses (PRISMA) and A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR-2) tools by two reviewers, respectively. Further, the evidence mapping method will be used to present assessment results. The key information will also be extracted by two independent reviewers. The Spearman’s correlation coefficient will be used to explore the association between reporting quality and methodological quality. The factors influencing the quality will be assessed through linear regression analyses. The sensitivity analysis will also be conducted. Data analyses will be performed using Stata 16.0 and Excel 2016. P<0.05 will be considered statistically significant.

Discussion

This overview of MAs concerning SCTs will provide comprehensive evidence on the quality of MAs and data of interest reported in MAs. Further, these data can be used to guide clinical practice and future research.

Overview registration

International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO): CRD42020206642.

Pornography use and sexting amongst children and young people: a systematic overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Young people's use of pornography and participation in sexting are commonly viewed as harmful behaviours. This paper reports findings from a 'review of reviews', which aimed to systematically identify and synthesise the evidence on pornography and sexting amongst young people. Here, we focus specifically on the evidence relating to young people's use of pornography; involvement in sexting; and their beliefs, attitudes, behaviours and wellbeing to better understand potential harms and benefits, and identify where future research is required.

METHODS

We searched five health and social science databases; searches for grey literature were also performed. Review quality was assessed and findings synthesised narratively.

RESULTS

Eleven reviews of quantitative and/or qualitative studies were included. A relationship was identified between pornography use and more permissive sexual attitudes. An association between pornography use and stronger gender-stereotypical sexual beliefs was also reported, but not consistently. Similarly, inconsistent evidence of an association between pornography use and sexting and sexual behaviour was identified. Pornography use has been associated with various forms of sexual violence, aggression and harassment, but the relationship appears complex. Girls, in particular, may experience coercion and pressure to engage in sexting and suffer more negative consequences than boys if sexts become public. Positive aspects to sexting were reported, particularly in relation to young people's personal relationships.

CONCLUSIONS

We identified evidence from reviews of varying quality that linked pornography use and sexting amongst young people to specific beliefs, attitudes and behaviours. However, evidence was often inconsistent and mostly derived from observational studies using a cross-sectional design, which precludes establishing any causal relationship. Other methodological limitations and evidence gaps were identified. More rigorous quantitative studies and greater use of qualitative methods are required.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and stroke: protocol for an umbrella review

Background: Falls are common among people with neurological diseases and have many negative physical, psychosocial and economic consequences. Implementation of single-diagnosis falls prevention interventions is currently problematic due to lack of participants and resources. Given the similarities in falls risk factors across stroke, Parkinson's Disease (PD) and Multiple Sclerosis (MS), the development of an intervention designed for mixed neurological populations seems plausible and may provide a pragmatic solution to current implementation challenges. This umbrella review aims to summarise the totality of evidence regarding the effectiveness of non-pharmacological falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke and identify the commonalities and differences between effective interventions for each disease to inform the development of an evidence-based intervention that can be tailored for people with mixed diagnoses. Methods: This umbrella review will be conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. 15 electronic databases and grey literature will be searched. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials and studies investigating the effects of non-pharmacological falls prevention interventions on falls outcomes among people with MS, PD and stroke will be included. Methodological quality of included reviews will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation framework will be used to rate the quality of evidence. A summary of evidence table and narrative synthesis will be utilised to clearly indicate the findings. Discussion: This umbrella review presents a novel and timely approach to synthesise existing falls literature to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke. Of importance, a robust methodology will be used to explore the differences and similarities in effective interventions for individuals with these neurological conditions to facilitate the development of an intervention for these mixed neurological groups.

Development and application of an outcome-centric approach for conducting overviews of reviews

There are gaps in current guidance concerning how to conduct overviews of systematic reviews in an outcome-centric manner. Herein we summarize the methods and lessons learned from conducting 4 outcome-centric overviews to help inform the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults aged 18–64 years and Adults aged 65 years or older on the topics of resistance training, balance and functional training, sedentary behaviour, sleep duration. We defined “critical” and “important” outcomes a priori. We used AMSTAR 2 to assess review quality and sought 1 systematic review per outcome. If multiple reviews were required to address subgroups for an outcome, we calculated the corrected covered area (CCA) to quantify overlap. We report our methodology in a PRISMA table. Across the 4 overviews, authors reviewed 1110 full texts; 45 were retained (low to high quality per AMSTAR 2), representing 950 primary studies, enrolling over 5 385 500 participants. Of 46 outcomes, we identified data for 35. Nineteen outcomes required >1 review (CCA range: 0% to 71.4%). Our outcome-centric overviews addressed unique aspects of overviews, including selection and quality assessment of included reviews, and overlap. Lessons learned included consistent application of methodological principles to minimize bias and optimize reporting transparency.

Novelty Overviews of reviews synthesize systematic reviews in a rigorous and transparent manner. Outcome-centric systematic reviews assess the quality of evidence for primary studies contributing to an outcome. This manuscript describes the development and application of extending the concept of outcome-centric systematic reviews to the design and conduct of outcome-centric overviews.

Effectiveness and Safety of Herbal Medicine for Atopic Dermatitis: An Overview of Systematic Reviews

Objectives

Herbal medicine (HM) is attracting attention for treating atopic dermatitis (AD). This overview was conducted to summarize and critically evaluate the current systematic reviews (SRs) on HM for the treatment of AD.

Methods

Through comprehensive searches, all relevant SRs on HM for AD published until May 2020 were included. The quality of included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR-2 tool. Moreover, original randomized controlled trials (RCTs) included in the SRs were resynthesized to investigate the efficacy and safety of oral HM for AD. The quality of evidence for the main findings was evaluated using the GRADE approach.

Results

Nine SRs were included in this overview. HM showed significantly better efficacy in terms of total effective rate (TER), itching and sleep symptom scores, quality of life, and the dose of topical treatment used compared with placebo. HM as a monotherapy and/or an adjunctive therapy to conventional medication (CM) showed significantly better results on the efficacy, symptom relief, and some laboratory parameters related to the inflammatory response. The methodological quality was generally low. When 58 original RCTs were reanalyzed, HM showed significantly lower SCORing Atopic Dermatitis (SCORAD) score and higher TER than the placebo or CM. In terms of the safety profile, HM was not significantly different from the placebo and was better than CM. The quality of evidence ranged from “moderate” to “very low.”

Conclusion

The results suggested that HM as a monotherapy or an adjunctive therapy is promising for the treatment of AD. However, due to low methodological quality and low quality of evidence, further rigorous, well-designed, high-quality SRs, and RCTs are needed to make clinical recommendations on HM use.

Methodological and reporting quality evaluation of meta-analyses on the Chinese herbal preparation Zheng Qing Feng Tong Ning for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis

BACKGROUND

Zheng Qing Feng Tong Ning (ZQFTN) is a sinomenine (SIN) preparation that has been used in clinical practice. Our study aimed to assess the methodological and reporting quality of meta-analyses on the Chinese herbal formula ZQFTN for the treatment of rheumatoid arthritis (RA).

METHODS

Systematic searches were carried out with the 5 following electronic databases from inception to July 2019: China National Knowledge Infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang, VIP database for Chinese technical periodicals (VIP), Cochrane Library and PubMed. The quality of the methodology and reporting was measured with the assessment of multiple systematic reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) scale, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement and the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE).

RESULTS

Eight studies were identified. Among the 16 items of the AMSTAR 2 scale, four items were optimally reported ("Y" =100% of the items), and another four items were poorly reported ("Y" =0% of the items). Only 2 studies received a good overall score ("Y" ≥50% of the items). Regarding the PRISMA statement, the scores of 5 studies were lower than the average score (17.69), indicating that the quality of the reports was very low. In terms of the GRADE, none of the 61 results were of high quality (0.0%). Fifteen results were of medium quality (25%), 34 were of low quality (55%), and 12 were of very low quality (20%). Among the five downgrading factors, deviation risk (n = 61, 100%) was the most common downgrading factor, followed by inconsistency (n = 30, 50%), publication bias (n = 17, 28%), inaccuracy (n = 11, 18%) and indirectness (n = 0, 0%).

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological and reporting quality of the meta-analyses and systematic reviews in the included studies are less than optimal, and researchers should undergo additional training and follow the AMSTAR 2 scale, PRISMA statement and GRADE to design high-quality studies in the future.

Effectiveness of non-pharmacological falls prevention interventions for people with Multiple Sclerosis, Parkinson's Disease and stroke: protocol for an umbrella review

Background: Falls are common among people with neurological diseases and are associated with many negative physical, psychosocial and economic consequences. Implementation of single diagnosis falls prevention interventions is currently problematic due to lack of participants and resources. Given the similarities in falls risk factors across stroke, Parkinson's Disease (PD) and Multiple Sclerosis (MS), the development of an intervention designed for mixed neurological populations seems plausible and may provide a solution to current implementation challenges. This umbrella review aims to summarise the totality of evidence regarding the effectiveness of non-pharmacological falls prevention interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke and to identify the commonalities and differences between interventions that are effective for each disease to inform the development of an intervention for mixed diagnoses. Methods: This umbrella review will be conducted and reported in accordance with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) statement. Electronic databases and grey literature will be searched. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials (RCTS) and studies investigating the effects of non-pharmacological falls prevention interventions on falls outcomes among people with MS, PD and stroke will be included. Methodological quality of included reviews will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool. The Grading of Recommendations Assessments, Development and Evaluation framework will be used to rate the quality of evidence. A summary of evidence table and narrative synthesis will be utilised to clearly indicate the findings. Discussion: This umbrella review presents a novel and timely approach to synthesise existing falls literature to identify effective non-pharmacological interventions for people with MS, PD and stroke. Of importance, this umbrella review will use a robust methodology to explore the key differences and similarities in effective interventions for individuals with these neurological diseases to facilitate the development of an intervention for mixed neurological groups.

Support interventions for families of people with terminal cancer in palliative care

OBJECTIVE

The terminal phase of cancer represents a major crisis for the family system. Regardless of the caregiving role they undertake, family members are forced to address multiple impacts when facing the approaching death of their terminally ill loved one. International guidelines recognize the importance of integrating the family into a care plan. However, more needs to be known about how to deliver optimal family support. The purpose of this study is to review the current state of the art in family/caregiver-focused interventions of people with terminal cancer in palliative care.

METHOD

For this purpose, an overview of the literature's systematic reviews on the topic was conducted to select Randomized Controlled Trials (RCTs) on family/caregiver-focused interventions.

RESULTS

Nine interventions were found in the systematic reviews of literature and meta-analysis. These family/caregiver-focused interventions were then thoroughly and critically analyzed. Despite the heterogeneity with regard to their characteristics, the interventions commonly focused on caregiving matters, were brief in duration, and delivered by non-mental health experts. The efficacy of such interventions was seen as modest.

SIGNIFICANCE OF RESULTS

Family/caregiver-focused interventions in palliative care remain a matter of concern and more research is needed to identify adequate and effective ways of helping families that face the crisis of terminal illness in the system.

The perspectives of patients and their caregivers on self-management interventions for chronic conditions: a protocol for a mixed-methods overview

Introduction: Self-management (SM) interventions are complex interventions and one of the main components of high-quality chronic disease care for which the incorporation of the perspectives of patients and their informal caregivers is crucial. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence exploring patients' and caregivers' perspectives on SM interventions. More precisely, we aim to 1) describe how they value the importance of outcomes of SM interventions, and 2) identify the factors that might impact on acceptability and feasibility of SM interventions based on their preferences and experiences. Methods and analysis: We will conduct four mixed-methods overviews as part of COMPAR-EU, a European Union (EU) funded project aimed to identify the most effective and cost-effective SM interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), obesity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We will search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for systematic reviews of studies addressing patients' preferences on outcomes, or their experiences with SM alongside their disease trajectory or with SM interventions, published in English. Selection of studies and data extraction will be conducted in pairs. We will assess the overlap of studies and methodological quality. We will follow a three-step synthesis process: 1) narrative synthesis for quantitative evidence, 2) thematic synthesis for qualitative evidence, and 3) integration of findings in the interpretation phase. Additionally, we will consult on the relevance of findings with patients and their caregivers. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019117867.

The perspectives of patients and their caregivers on self-management interventions for chronic conditions: a protocol for a mixed-methods overview

Introduction: Self-management (SM) interventions are complex interventions and one of the main components of high-quality chronic disease care for which the incorporation of the perspectives of patients and their informal caregivers is crucial. We aim to identify, appraise and synthesise the evidence exploring patients' and caregivers' perspectives on SM interventions. More precisely, we aim to 1) describe how they value the importance of outcomes of SM interventions, and 2) identify the factors that might impact on acceptability and feasibility of SM interventions based on their preferences and experiences. Methods and analysis: We will conduct four mixed-methods overviews as part of COMPAR-EU, a European Union (EU) funded project aimed to identify the most effective and cost-effective SM interventions for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), heart failure (HF), obesity, and type 2 diabetes mellitus (T2DM). We will search in MEDLINE, CINAHL, and PsycINFO for systematic reviews of studies addressing patients' preferences on outcomes, or their experiences with SM alongside their disease trajectory or with SM interventions, published in English. Selection of studies and data extraction will be conducted in pairs. We will assess the overlap of studies and methodological quality. We will follow a three-step synthesis process: 1) narrative synthesis for quantitative evidence, 2) thematic synthesis for qualitative evidence, and 3) integration of findings in the interpretation phase. Additionally, we will consult on the relevance of findings with patients and their caregivers. Systematic review registration: PROSPERO CRD42019117867.

Impact and use of reviews and 'overviews of reviews' to inform clinical practice guideline recommendations: protocol for a methods study

INTRODUCTION

Guidelines are systematically developed recommendations to assist practitioner and patient decisions about treatments for clinical conditions. High quality and comprehensive systematic reviews and 'overviews of systematic reviews' (overviews) represent the best available evidence. Many guideline developers, such as the WHO and the Australian National Health and Medical Research Council, recommend the use of these research syntheses to underpin guideline recommendations. We aim to evaluate the impact and use of systematic reviews with and without pairwise meta-analysis or network meta-analyses (NMAs) and overviews in clinical practice guideline (CPG) recommendations.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

CPGs will be retrieved from Turning Research Into Practice and Epistemonikos (2017-2018). The retrieved citations will be sorted randomly and then screened sequentially by two independent reviewers until 50 CPGs have been identified. We will include CPGs that provide at least two explicit recommendations for the management of any clinical condition. We will assess whether reviews or overviews were cited in a recommendation as part of the development process for guidelines. Data extraction will be done independently by two authors and compared. We will assess the risk of bias by examining how each guideline developed clinical recommendations. We will calculate the number and frequency of citations of reviews with or without pairwise meta-analysis, reviews with NMAs and overviews, and whether they were systematically or non-systematically developed. Results will be described, tabulated and categorised based on review type (reviews or overviews). CPGs reporting the use of the Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation approach will be compared with those using a different system, and pharmacological versus non-pharmacological CPGs will be compared.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

No ethics approval is required. We will present at the Cochrane Colloquium and the Guidelines International Network conference.

Rehabilitation interventions for improving balance following stroke: An overview of systematic reviews

Background

The aim of this study was to synthesize evidence from systematic reviews, to summarise the effects of rehabilitation interventions for improving balance in stroke survivors.

Methods

We conducted an overview of systematic reviews (SRs). We included Cochrane Systematic Reviews and non-Cochrane Systematic Reviews of randomized-controlled clinical trials and not-randomized clinical trials, in all types of stroke, comparing the effects of interventions, control interventions and no interventions on balance-related outcomes. We conducted a comprehensive search of electronic databases, from inception to December 2017. Data extracted included: number and type of participants, type of intervention, control intervention, method of assessing risk of bias of primary studies, balance outcome measures and results of statistical meta-analyses. Methodological quality of included reviews was assessed using AMSTAR 2. A narrative description of the characteristics of the SRs was provided and results of meta-analyses summarised with reference to their methodological quality.

Results

51 SRs (248 primary studies and 10,638 participants) met the inclusion criteria and were included in the overview. All participants were adults with stroke. A wide variety of different balance and postural control outcomes were included. 61% of SRs focussed on the effectiveness of physical therapy, 20% virtual reality, 6% electromechanical devices, 4% Tai-Chi, whole body vibration and circuit training intervention, and 2% cognitive rehabilitation. The methodology of 54% of SRs were judged to be of a “low or critically low” quality, 23% “moderate” quality and 22% “high” quality.

Conclusions

There are 51 SRs of evidence relating to the effectiveness of interventions to improve balance in people with stroke, but the majority of these are of poor methodological quality, limiting our ability to draw clear implications. Only 22% of these SRs were judged to be of high quality, highlighting the need to address important methodological issues within rehabilitation research.

Silver diamine fluoride for managing carious lesions: an umbrella review

Background

This umbrella review comprehensively appraised evidence for silver diamine fluoride (SDF) to arrest and prevent root and coronal caries by summarizing systematic reviews. Adverse events were explored.

Methods

Following Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis (PRISMA) guidelines, PubMed, Embase, Cochrane Library, PROSPERO register and Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for systematic reviews investigating SDF for caries prevention or arrest (1970–2018) without language restrictions. Systematic reviews were selected, data extracted, and risk of bias assessed using ROBIS by two independent reviewers, in duplicate. Corrected covered area was calculated to quantify studies’ overlap across reviews.

Results

Eleven systematic reviews were included; four focussing on SDF for root caries in adults and seven on coronal caries in children. These cited 30 studies (4 root caries; 26 coronal caries) appearing 63 times. Five systematic reviews were of “low”, one “unclear” and five “high” risk of bias. Overlap of studies was very high (50% root caries; 17% coronal caries). High overlap and heterogeneity, mainly comparators and outcome measures, precluded meta-analysis. Results were grouped by aim and outcomes to present an overview of direction and magnitude of effect. SDF had a positive effect on prevention and arrest of coronal and root caries, consistently outperforming comparators (fluoride varnish, Atraumatic Restorative Treatment, placebo). For root caries prevention, the prevented fraction (PF) was 25–71% higher for SDF compared to placebo (two systematic reviews with three studies) and PF = 100–725% for root caries arrest (one systematic review with two studies). For coronal caries prevention, PF = 70–78% (two systematic reviews with two studies) and PF = 55–96% for coronal caries arrest (one systematic review with two studies) with arrest rates of 65–91% (four systematic reviews with six studies). Eight systematic reviews reported adverse events, seven of which reported arrested lesions black staining.

Conclusion

Systematic reviews consistently supported SDF’s effectiveness for arresting coronal caries in the primary dentition and arresting and preventing root caries in older adults for all comparators. There is insufficient evidence to draw conclusions on SDF for prevention in primary teeth and prevention and arrest in permanent teeth in children. No serious adverse events were reported.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12903-019-0830-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Cochrane overviews: how can we optimize their impact on evidence-based rehabilitation?

INTRODUCTION

Overviews (i.e. reviews of multiple systematic reviews) comprise a relatively novel methodology to systematically synthesize research findings. Overviews aim for a beneficial impact on clinical practice, but their methods and pathways to impact have so far not been mapped. The aim of this paper was to inform recommendations for optimizing impact on rehabilitation practice and research by mapping methods and pathways to impact in Cochrane overviews relevant to rehabilitation.

EVIDENCE ACQUISITION

We systematically searched and identified published Cochrane overviews (to June 2018) relevant to rehabilitation. We extracted data and compared overviews on key characteristics, methods of evidence synthesis, statements about impact, and access metrics. We explored one overview in detail regarding beneficiaries, activities and outputs, mapped potential pathways to impact, and, using an iterative process, refined this into a generic map. Through exploration of all synthesized data, we propose further recommendations for planning, conducting and reporting of future overviews in order to optimize impact on rehabilitation.

EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS

We identified seven Cochrane overviews relevant to rehabilitation. Their focus and methods varied, but they were broadly related to rehabilitation interventions for populations of people with diverse long-term conditions. Overviews also varied regarding their intended impact; only 4 overviews identified specific beneficiaries. All overviews included multiple tables and figures, but only one synthesized key findings into a single figure. For five overviews, the Altmetric Attention Score (a weighted count of attention that an output receives based on a range of online sources) was in the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric. The overview within our worked example had four key impact goals, each with different beneficiaries and required actions; this example led to a generic map of potential pathways to impact for other overviews.

CONCLUSIONS

Cochrane overviews have the potential to play a key role in knowledge translation and therefore to be useful in supporting evidence-based rehabilitation practice. However, current overviews relating to rehabilitation differ in methods, approaches and intended impact, and sometimes fall short of promoting easy access to key information for beneficiaries. Future Cochrane overviews should address topics of importance to key beneficiaries and clearly outline potential pathways to impact in order to have a potential beneficial impact on evidence-based rehabilitation and to improve rehabilitation outcomes.

Screening for periodontal diseases by non-dental health professionals: a protocol for a systematic review and overview of reviews

BACKGROUND

Periodontal diseases are responsible for a vast burden of disease globally and are associated with other severe illnesses such as cardiovascular diseases or diabetes. Tests for early diagnosis of periodontal diseases and effective treatments are available. The effectiveness of screening for periodontal diseases to detect periodontal diseases at an early stage during periodic health examinations at primary care facilities, however, is unclear. The objective of this systematic review is to assess the benefits and risks of screening for periodontal diseases in adults during the periodic health examinations.

METHODS

We will use two methodological approaches: (1) a systematic review to assess the effectiveness and risk of harms of screening for periodontal diseases during periodic health examinations and (2) an overview of systematic reviews to determine the effectiveness of treatment approaches for early periodontal disease. We will search electronic databases (Ovid MEDLINE, Embase.com , the Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases, PubMed (non-MEDLINE content)) for published studies as well as sources for grey literature to detect unpublished studies. Two authors will independently screen abstracts and full texts using pre-defined eligibility criteria, select studies, extract data, and assess the risk of bias of included studies or reviews. In general, we will conduct a systematic narrative synthesis. Criteria for conducting meta-analyses were defined a priori. Our primary outcomes of interest are tooth loss, loosening of teeth, and depletion of bone tissue. Secondary outcomes are gingivitis/gum inflammation, pocket depths, dental hygiene, lifestyle modifications (e.g., smoking, alcohol, nutrition), and toothache. We consulted a panel of experts and patient representatives to prioritize these outcomes. Two investigators will assess independently the certainty of the evidence for each outcome using the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) approach.

DISCUSSION

We anticipate that our review will highlight the gaps in the available evidence about the effectiveness of screening for periodontal diseases during periodic health examinations. Implications for screening programs may be based on linked evidence about the validity of available screening tools and the effectiveness of early treatment.

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

PROSPERO CRD42017081150.

Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews (SRs) attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews. This is the second of two papers from a study aiming to develop a comprehensive evidence map of the methods used in overviews. Our objectives were to (a) develop a framework of methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews (stage I)-the Methods for Overviews of Reviews (MOoR) framework-and (b) to create an evidence map by mapping studies that have evaluated overview methods to the framework (stage II). In the first paper, we reported findings for the four initial steps of an overview (specification of purpose, objectives and scope; eligibility criteria; search methods; data extraction). In this paper, we report the remaining steps: assessing risk of bias; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessing certainty of the evidence arising from the overview.

METHODS

In stage I, we identified cross-sectional studies, guidance documents and commentaries that described methods proposed for, or used in, overviews. Based on these studies, we developed a framework of possible methods for overviews, categorised by the steps in conducting an overview. Multiple iterations of the framework were discussed and refined by all authors. In stage II, we identified studies evaluating methods and mapped these evaluations to the framework.

RESULTS

Forty-two stage I studies described methods relevant to one or more of the latter steps of an overview. Six studies evaluating methods were included in stage II. These mapped to steps involving (i) the assessment of risk of bias (RoB) in SRs (two SRs and three primary studies, all reporting evaluation of RoB tools) and (ii) the synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings (one primary study evaluating methods for measuring overlap).

CONCLUSION

Many methods have been described for use in the latter steps in conducting an overview; however, evaluation and guidance for applying these methods is sparse. The exception is RoB assessment, for which a multitude of tools exist-several with sufficient evaluation and guidance to recommend their use. Evaluation of other methods is required to provide a comprehensive evidence map.

Management of recurrent pancreatic cancer after surgical resection: a protocol for systematic review, evidence mapping and meta-analysis

INTRODUCTION

Although recurrence rate among cases of resected pancreatic cancer are as high as 85%, an optimal treatment for recurrent pancreatic cancer (RePC) has not been established. Previous evidence regarding RePC is scarce, and randomised controlled trials (RCTs) are particularly lacking. The evidence mapping (EM) method has been introduced as a tool intended to complement the conventional systematic review (SR) and meta-analysis (MA) and is suitable for this issue. This review aims to investigate the optimal treatment options for RePC, using a newly developed automatic EM tool.

METHOD AND ANALYSIS

All study types, including RCTs, non-randomised studies and other forms of observational studies will be included in the SR-EM. The Medline, Embase, Cochrane library and Scopus databases will be searched for reports of five treatment options for local and metastatic recurrences, including re-resection, chemotherapy, radiotherapy, best supportive care and other novel treatments, published from database inception to 30 April 2017. References from relevant studies will be searched manually. If meta-analysis is feasible, the primary outcome measure will be median overall survival. Two independent authors will select the studies and assess the risk of bias, and a third author will resolve discrepancies in consensus meeting. To visualise EM, we will use a novel web-based and open-access mapping programme, Plotting E-Map (PLOEM) (http://plotting-e-map.com). If eligible combinations of interventions for quantitative comparison are identified, we will conduct subgroup MAs using random-effect models and I2 statistics. Publication bias will be visualised using funnel plots.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

This study will not use primary data, and therefore formal ethical approval is not required. The findings will be disseminated through peer-reviewed journals and committee conferences.

PROSPEROREGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42016049178.

An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews are a relatively new approach to synthesising evidence, and research methods and associated guidance are developing. Within this paper we aim to help readers understand key issues which are essential to consider when taking the first steps in planning an overview. These issues relate to the development of clear, relevant research questions and objectives prior to the development of an overview protocol.

METHODS

Initial discussions and key concepts for this paper were formed during a workshop on overview methods at the 2016 UK Cochrane Symposium, at which all members of this author group presented work and contributed to wider discussions. Detailed descriptions of the various key features of overviews and their different objectives were created by the author group based upon current evidence (Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook Syst Rev Interv. 2011;4:5, Pollock M, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:190-205, Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. UK and Ireland: Cochrane Symposium; 2016, Pieper D, et al. Res Syn Meth. 2014;5:187-99, Lunny C, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:4-12, Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium; 2015, Hartling L, et al. Plos One. 2012;7:1-8, Ballard M, Montgomery P. Res Syn Meth. 2017;8:92-108) and author experiences conducting overviews.

RESULTS

Within this paper we introduce different types of overviews and suggest common research questions addressed by these overviews. We briefly reflect on the key features and objectives of the example overviews discussed.

CONCLUSIONS

Clear decisions relating to the research questions and objectives are a fundamental first step during the initial planning stages for an overview. Key stakeholders should be involved at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the planned overview is relevant and meaningful to the potential end users of the overview. Following best practice in common with other forms of systematic evidence synthesis, an overview protocol should be published, ensuring transparency and reducing opportunities for introduction of bias in the conduct of the overview.

Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews. Methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews are in their infancy. To date, there has been no evidence map of the methods used in overviews, thus making it difficult to determine the gaps and priorities for methods research. Our objectives were to develop and populate a comprehensive framework of methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews (stage I) and to create an evidence map by mapping studies that have evaluated overview methods to the framework (stage II).

METHODS

We searched methods collections (e.g. Cochrane Methodology Register, Meth4ReSyn library, AHRQ Effective Health Care Program) to identify eligible studies for both stages of this research. In stage I, cross-sectional studies, guidance documents and commentaries that described methods proposed for, or used in, overviews were used to develop and populate the framework of methods. Drafts and multiple iterations of the framework were discussed and refined by all authors. In stage II, we identified and described studies evaluating overview methods and mapped these evaluations to the framework.

RESULTS

In this paper, we present results for the four initial steps of conducting an overview: (a) specification of the purpose, objectives and scope, (b) specification of the eligibility criteria, (c) search methods and (d) data extraction. Twenty-nine studies mentioned or described methods relevant to one or more of these steps. In the developed framework, identified methods and approaches were grouped according to the steps an overview author would need to undertake. Fifteen studies evaluated identified methods, all of which mapped to the search methods step. These studies either reported the development and evaluation of a new search filter to retrieve systematic reviews or compared the performance of multiple filters.

CONCLUSION

Gaps in the evaluation of methods were found for the majority of steps in the framework. More empirical studies are needed to evaluate the methods outlined and provide a comprehensive evidence map. The framework is useful for planning these evaluations and for planning methods required to deal with challenges that arise when conducting an overview.

Effects of e-learning in a continuing education context on nursing care: a review of systematic qualitative, quantitative and mixed studies reviews (protocol)

INTRODUCTION

Continuing education (CE) is imperative to the future of professional nursing. The use of e-learning by registered nurses for CE is spreading. A review of systematic reviews will be conducted to develop a broad picture of the effects of e-learning in a CE context on nursing care.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

Systematic qualitative, quantitative and mixed studies reviews published in English, French or Spanish from 1 January 2006 will be included. The outcomes of interest will be extracted and analysed inductively and deductively from the Nursing Care Performance Framework; some themes include nursing resources, nurses' practice environment, processes, professional satisfaction, and nursing sensitive outcomes. Three reviewers will independently screen first the title and abstract of the papers, and then the full texts in order to assess eligibility. Two teams of two reviewers will extract the selected reviews' characteristics and data. The results from various types of reviews will be integrated using a data-based convergent synthesis design. We will conduct a thematic synthesis and transform all quantitative and mixed data into qualitative data.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

Ethics approval is not required for review of systematic reviews. We will summarise evidence concerning the negative, neutral and positive effects of various forms of e-learning on different aspects of nursing care. If we find gaps in the literature, we will highlight them and suggest ideas for further research. We will also focus on positive effects and present, if possible, the components and characteristics of e-learning interventions that were found to be successful. We will present this protocol and results in international conferences in nursing, medical, and health informatics domains. We will also submit the results of our work for peer-review publication in a journal indexed in the international bibliographic database of biomedical information.

Overviews of systematic reviews: great promise, greater challenge

The proliferation of systematic reviews and escalating demand from policy makers has driven a newer form of evidence synthesis-overviews of systematic reviews. Systematic Reviews are publishing a special thematic series on overviews and are encouraging submissions on the development and evaluation of methods for this review type. The authors' of this editorial introduce the series by considering challenges that arise when conducting an overview and what methods guidance is available. They emphasise the importance of evaluating overview methods to understand the trade-offs of using different approaches and propose that a more systematic and coordinated approach to methods development would be beneficial. Finally, they consider the potential for overviews to drive improvements in the conduct and reporting of systematic reviews.

Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews

BACKGROUND

Overviews of systematic reviews are an increasingly popular method of evidence synthesis; there is a lack of clear guidance for completing overviews and a number of methodological challenges. At the UK Cochrane Symposium 2016, methodological challenges of five overviews were explored. Using data from these five overviews, practical implications to support methodological decision making of authors writing protocols for future overviews are proposed.

METHODS

Methods, and their justification, from the five exemplar overviews were tabulated and compared with areas of debate identified within current literature. Key methodological challenges and implications for development of overview protocols were generated and synthesised into a list, discussed and refined until there was consensus.

RESULTS

Methodological features of three Cochrane overviews, one overview of diagnostic test accuracy and one mixed methods overview have been summarised. Methods of selection of reviews and data extraction were similar. Either the AMSTAR or ROBIS tool was used to assess quality of included reviews. The GRADE approach was most commonly used to assess quality of evidence within the reviews. Eight key methodological challenges were identified from the exemplar overviews. There was good agreement between our findings and emerging areas of debate within a recent published synthesis. Implications for development of protocols for future overviews were identified.

CONCLUSIONS

Overviews are a relatively new methodological innovation, and there are currently substantial variations in the methodological approaches used within different overviews. There are considerable methodological challenges for which optimal solutions are not necessarily yet known. Lessons learnt from five exemplar overviews highlight a number of methodological decisions which may be beneficial to consider during the development of an overview protocol.

Impact of Information and Communication Technologies on Nursing Care: Results of an Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background

Information and communication technologies (ICTs) are becoming an impetus for quality health care delivery by nurses. The use of ICTs by nurses can impact their practice, modifying the ways in which they plan, provide, document, and review clinical care.

Objective

An overview of systematic reviews was conducted to develop a broad picture of the dimensions and indicators of nursing care that have the potential to be influenced by the use of ICTs.

Methods

Quantitative, mixed-method, and qualitative reviews that aimed to evaluate the influence of four eHealth domains (eg, management, computerized decision support systems [CDSSs], communication, and information systems) on nursing care were included. We used the nursing care performance framework (NCPF) as an extraction grid and analytical tool. This model illustrates how the interplay between nursing resources and the nursing services can produce changes in patient conditions. The primary outcomes included nurses’ practice environment, nursing processes, professional satisfaction, and nursing-sensitive outcomes. The secondary outcomes included satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ICTs according to nurses’ and patients’ perspectives. Reviews published in English, French, or Spanish from January 1, 1995 to January 15, 2015, were considered.

Results

A total of 5515 titles or abstracts were assessed for eligibility and full-text papers of 72 articles were retrieved for detailed evaluation. It was found that 22 reviews published between 2002 and 2015 met the eligibility criteria. Many nursing care themes (ie, indicators) were influenced by the use of ICTs, including time management; time spent on patient care; documentation time; information quality and access; quality of documentation; knowledge updating and utilization; nurse autonomy; intra and interprofessional collaboration; nurses’ competencies and skills; nurse-patient relationship; assessment, care planning, and evaluation; teaching of patients and families; communication and care coordination; perspectives of the quality of care provided; nurses and patients satisfaction or dissatisfaction with ICTs; patient comfort and quality of life related to care; empowerment; and functional status.

Conclusions

The findings led to the identification of 19 indicators related to nursing care that are impacted by the use of ICTs. To the best of our knowledge, this was the first attempt to apply NCPF in the ICTs’ context. This broad representation could be kept in mind when it will be the time to plan and to implement emerging ICTs in health care settings.

Trial Registration

PROSPERO International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews: CRD42014014762; http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.asp?ID=CRD42014014762 (Archived by WebCite at http://www.webcitation.org/6pIhMLBZh)

Clinical-effectiveness of self-management interventions in chronic obstructive pulmonary disease: An overview of reviews

Self-management (SM) is defined as the provision of interventions to increase patients’ skills and confidence, empowering the individual to take an active part in their disease management. There is uncertainty regarding the optimal format and the short- and long-term benefits of chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD) SM interventions in adults. Therefore, a high-quality overview of reviews was updated to examine their clinical effectiveness. Sixteen reviews were identified, interventions were broadly classified as education or action plans, complex interventions with an SM focus, pulmonary rehabilitation (PR), telehealth and outreach nursing. Systematic review and meta-analysis quality and the risk of bias of underlying primary studies were assessed. Strong evidence was found that PR is associated with significant improvements in health-related quality of life (HRQoL). Limited to moderate evidence for complex interventions (SM focus) with limited evidence for education, action plans, telehealth interventions and outreach nursing for HRQoL was found. There was strong evidence that education is associated with a significant reduction in COPD-related hospital admissions, moderate to strong evidence that telehealth interventions and moderate evidence that complex interventions (SM focus) are associated with reduced health care utilization. These findings from a large body of evidence suggesting that SM, through education or as a component of PR, confers significant health gains in people with COPD in terms of HRQoL. SM supported by telehealth confers significant reductions in healthcare utilization, including hospitalization and emergency department visits.

What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary

BACKGROUND

Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile data from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there is limited methodological guidance available for researchers wishing to conduct overviews. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and collate all published and unpublished documents containing guidance for conducting overviews examining the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of healthcare interventions. Our aims were to provide a map of existing guidance documents; identify similarities, differences, and gaps in the guidance contained within these documents; and identify common challenges involved in conducting overviews.

METHODS

We conducted an iterative and extensive search to ensure breadth and comprehensiveness of coverage. The search involved reference tracking, database and web searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, Scopus, Cochrane Methods Studies Database, Google Scholar), handsearching of websites and conference proceedings, and contacting overview producers. Relevant guidance statements and challenges encountered were extracted, edited, grouped, abstracted, and presented using a qualitative metasummary approach.

RESULTS

We identified 52 guidance documents produced by 19 research groups. Relatively consistent guidance was available for the first stages of the overview process (deciding when and why to conduct an overview, specifying the scope, and searching for and including systematic reviews). In contrast, there was limited or conflicting guidance for the latter stages of the overview process (quality assessment of systematic reviews and their primary studies, collecting and analyzing data, and assessing quality of evidence), and many of the challenges identified were also related to these stages. An additional, overarching challenge identified was that overviews are limited by the methods, reporting, and coverage of their included systematic reviews.

CONCLUSIONS

This compilation of methodological guidance for conducting overviews of healthcare interventions will facilitate the production of future overviews and can help authors address key challenges they are likely to encounter. The results of this project have been used to identify areas where future methodological research is required to generate empirical evidence for overview methods. Additionally, these results have been used to update the chapter on overviews in the next edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

Chinese herbal medicine for the treatment of primary hypertension: a methodology overview of systematic reviews

BACKGROUND

Chinese herbal medicine has been used to treat hypertension in China and East Asia since centuries. In this study, we conduct an overview of systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicine in the treatment of primary hypertension to 1) summarize the conclusions of these reviews, 2) evaluate the methodological quality of these reviews, and 3) rate the confidence in the effect on each outcome.

METHODS

We comprehensively searched six databases to retrieve systematic reviews of Chinese herbal medicine for primary hypertension from inception to December 31, 2015. We used AMSTAR to evaluate the methodological quality of included reviews, and we classified the quality of evidence for each outcome in included reviews using the GRADE approach.

RESULTS

A total of 12 systematic reviews with 31 outcomes were included, among which 11 systematic reviews focus on the therapeutic effect of Chinese herbal medicine combined with conventional medicine or simple Chinese herbal medicine versus simple conventional medicine. Among the 11 items of AMSTAR, the lowest quality was "providing a priori design" item, none review conformed to this item, the next was "stating the conflict of interest" item, only three reviews conformed to this item. Five reviews scored less than seven in AMSTAR, which means that the overall methodological quality was fairly poor. For GRADE, of the 31 outcomes, the quality of evidence was high in none (0 %), moderate in three (10 %), low in 19 (61 %), and very low in nine (29 %). Of the five downgrading factors, risk of bias (100 %) was the most common downgrading factor in the included reviews, followed by imprecision (42 %), inconsistency (39 %), publication bias (39 %), and indirectness (0 %).

CONCLUSIONS

The methodological quality of systematic reviews about Chinese herbal medicine for primary hypertension is fairly poor, and the quality of evidence level is low. Physicians should be cautious when applying the interventions in these reviews for primary hypertension patients in clinical practice.