Karen A Robinson1, Roger Chou2, Nancy D Berkman3, Sydne J Newberry4, Rongwei Fu5, Lisa Hartling6, Donna Dryden6, Mary Butler7, Michelle Foisy6, Johanna Anderson5, Makalapua Motu'apuaka5, Rose Relevo5, Jeanne-Marie Guise5, Stephanie Chang8. 1. Johns Hopkins University, 1830 E. Monument St, Suite 8068, Baltimore, MD 21287, USA. Electronic address: krobin@jhmi.edu. 2. Oregon Health & Science University, Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center, Mail code: BICC, 3181 SW, Sam Jackson Park Rd, Portland, OR 97239, USA. 3. Cecil G. Sheps Center for Health Services Research, The University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, CB# 7590 725, Martin Luther King Jr. Blvd., Chapel Hill, NC 27599, USA. 4. Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center, RAND Corporation, 1776 Main Street, PO Box 2138, Santa Monica, CA 90407, USA. 5. Portland VA Research Foundation, 3710 SW, US Veterans Hospital Road, Mail Code: R&D71, Portland, OR 97239, USA. 6. Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, Room 4-496A, $th Floor, Edmonton Clinic Health Academy, 11405 - 87 Avenue, Edmonton, AB, Canada T6G 1C9. 7. School of Public Health, University of Minnesota, D351 Mayo (MMC 197), 420 Delaware Street, SE Minneapolis, MN 55455, USA. 8. Center for Evidence and Practice Improvement, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 540 Gaither Road, Rockville, MD 20850, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: As time and cost constraints in the conduct of systematic reviews increase, the need to consider the use of existing systematic reviews also increases. We developed guidance on the integration of systematic reviews into new reviews. METHODS: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers developed consensus-based recommendations. Discussions were informed by a literature scan and by interviews with organizations that conduct systematic reviews. RESULTS: Twelve recommendations were developed addressing selecting reviews, assessing risk of bias, qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and summarizing and assessing body of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide preliminary guidance for an efficient and unbiased approach to integrating existing systematic reviews with primary studies in a new review.
OBJECTIVES: As time and cost constraints in the conduct of systematic reviews increase, the need to consider the use of existing systematic reviews also increases. We developed guidance on the integration of systematic reviews into new reviews. METHODS: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers developed consensus-based recommendations. Discussions were informed by a literature scan and by interviews with organizations that conduct systematic reviews. RESULTS: Twelve recommendations were developed addressing selecting reviews, assessing risk of bias, qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and summarizing and assessing body of evidence. CONCLUSIONS: We provide preliminary guidance for an efficient and unbiased approach to integrating existing systematic reviews with primary studies in a new review.
Authors: M Shepherd-Banigan; K M Goldstein; R R Coeytaux; J R McDuffie; A P Goode; A S Kosinski; M G Van Noord; D Befus; S Adam; V Masilamani; A Nagi; J W Williams Journal: Complement Ther Med Date: 2017-08-24 Impact factor: 2.446
Authors: John E Wang; Sung Eun Kim; Bong Eun Lee; Sungho Park; Joo Ha Hwang; Robert J Huang Journal: Cancer Causes Control Date: 2021-11-19 Impact factor: 2.506
Authors: Karen M Goldstein; Jennifer R McDuffie; Megan Shepherd-Banigan; Deanna Befus; Remy R Coeytaux; Megan G Van Noord; Adam P Goode; Varsha Masilamani; Soheir Adam; Avishek Nagi; John W Williams Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2016-04-07
Authors: Marija Barbateskovic; Laura Krone Larsen; Marie Oxenbøll-Collet; Janus Christian Jakobsen; Anders Perner; Jørn Wetterslev Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2016-12-07
Authors: Olalekan A Uthman; Lena Al-Khudairy; Chidozie U Nduka; Rachel Court; Hema Mistry; G J Melendez-Torres; Sian Taylor-Phillips; Aileen Clarke Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2020-05-07