CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study in which multiple evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) is compiled into an accessible and useful document. The aim here was to describe the state of the art and critically assess Cochrane OoRs that have been published. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at a research center. METHODS: The OoRs identified through the filter developed in Part I of this study were evaluated in five domains: methodological quality; quality of evidence; implications for practice; general profile of OoRs; and length of work. RESULTS: All 13 OoRs included had high methodological quality. Some OoRs did not present sufficient data to judge the quality of evidence; using sensitivity analysis, the quality of evidence of the OoRs increased. Regarding implications for practice, 64% of the interventions were judged as beneficial or harmful, while 36% of them showed insufficient evidence for judgment. It is expected (with 95% confidence interval) that one OoR will include 9,462 to 64,469 patients, 9 to 29 systematic reviews and 80 to 344 primary studies, and assess 6 to 21 interventions; and that 50 to 92% of OoRs will produce meta-analysis. The OoRs generated 2 to 26 meta-analyses over a period of 18 to 31 months. CONCLUSION: The OoRs presented high methodological quality; the quality of evidence tended to be moderate/high; most interventions were judged to be beneficial/harmful; the mean length of work was 24 months. The OoR profile adds power to decision-making.
CONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: Overviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study in which multiple evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) is compiled into an accessible and useful document. The aim here was to describe the state of the art and critically assess Cochrane OoRs that have been published. DESIGN AND SETTING: Descriptive study conducted at a research center. METHODS: The OoRs identified through the filter developed in Part I of this study were evaluated in five domains: methodological quality; quality of evidence; implications for practice; general profile of OoRs; and length of work. RESULTS: All 13 OoRs included had high methodological quality. Some OoRs did not present sufficient data to judge the quality of evidence; using sensitivity analysis, the quality of evidence of the OoRs increased. Regarding implications for practice, 64% of the interventions were judged as beneficial or harmful, while 36% of them showed insufficient evidence for judgment. It is expected (with 95% confidence interval) that one OoR will include 9,462 to 64,469 patients, 9 to 29 systematic reviews and 80 to 344 primary studies, and assess 6 to 21 interventions; and that 50 to 92% of OoRs will produce meta-analysis. The OoRs generated 2 to 26 meta-analyses over a period of 18 to 31 months. CONCLUSION: The OoRs presented high methodological quality; the quality of evidence tended to be moderate/high; most interventions were judged to be beneficial/harmful; the mean length of work was 24 months. The OoR profile adds power to decision-making.
Authors: Clayton Gonçalves de Almeida; Mariana Del Grossi Moura; Silvio Barberato-Filho; Fernando de Sá Del Fiol; Rogério Heládio Lopes Motta; Cristiane de Cássia Bergamaschi Journal: Psychiatr Q Date: 2017-12
Authors: Laura J Anderson; Teryl K Nuckols; Courtney Coles; Michael M Le; Jeff L Schnipper; Rita Shane; Cynthia Jackevicius; Joshua Lee; Joshua M Pevnick Journal: Am J Health Syst Pharm Date: 2020-01-08 Impact factor: 2.637
Authors: Jaciane Santos-Marques; Marilyse de Oliveira-Meneses; Aline Tavares-Gomes; Elaine Maria Leite Rangel-Andrade; José Ramón Martinez-Riera; Fernando Lopes E Silva-Júnior Journal: Enferm Clin Date: 2022-06-23
Authors: Lawrence Mbuagbaw; Dominik Mertz; Daeria O Lawson; Marek Smieja; Anita C Benoit; Elizabeth Alvarez; Lisa Puchalski Ritchie; Beth Rachlis; Carmen Logie; Winston Husbands; Shari Margolese; Lehana Thabane Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2018-09-11 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Moustafa A Gadalla; Robert J Norman; Chau T Tay; Danielle S Hiam; Angela Melder; Jyotsna Pundir; Shakila Thangaratinam; Helena J Teede; Ben W J Mol; Lisa J Moran Journal: Int J Fertil Steril Date: 2019-11-11