Carole Lunny1, Sue E Brennan2, Jane Reid3, Steve McDonald2, Joanne E McKenzie4. 1. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia; Cochrane Hypertension Review Group and the Therapeutics Initiative, University of British Columbia, Vancouver, Canada. 2. Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 3. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. 4. School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia. Electronic address: joanne.mckenzie@monash.edu.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the completeness of reporting of methods in overviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Assessment of the adequacy of reporting of methods in a random sample of 50 overviews was based on a published framework of methods for conducting overviews. Descriptive summary statistics were presented. RESULTS: We screened 848 randomly selected abstracts to obtain the required 50 overviews. Overviews included a median of 13 (interquartile range 7-32) systematic reviews (SRs), 22% reported working from a protocol, 36% reported using reporting standards (e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and 34% reported using methodological guidance (e.g., Cochrane Handbook). Methods common to both overviews and SRs of primary studies were reported in majority of overviews (e.g., 56% framed the overview question by Population, Intervention(s), Comparison(s), Outcome(s) [PICO] elements; 44% reported eligibility criteria based on PICO, and 76% reported assessing the risk of bias of SRs), except for methods for summarizing evidence (20%) or statistical synthesis (26%). A minority reported methods for handling unique aspects of overviews (e.g., overlap in the primary studies [30%], discrepant or missing data [14%], and discordant results/conclusions across reviews [20%]). CONCLUSION: Reporting of methods unique to overviews requires improvement. Our findings provide a benchmark of the completeness of reporting and may inform guidance on the conduct and reporting of overviews.
OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the completeness of reporting of methods in overviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Assessment of the adequacy of reporting of methods in a random sample of 50 overviews was based on a published framework of methods for conducting overviews. Descriptive summary statistics were presented. RESULTS: We screened 848 randomly selected abstracts to obtain the required 50 overviews. Overviews included a median of 13 (interquartile range 7-32) systematic reviews (SRs), 22% reported working from a protocol, 36% reported using reporting standards (e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and 34% reported using methodological guidance (e.g., Cochrane Handbook). Methods common to both overviews and SRs of primary studies were reported in majority of overviews (e.g., 56% framed the overview question by Population, Intervention(s), Comparison(s), Outcome(s) [PICO] elements; 44% reported eligibility criteria based on PICO, and 76% reported assessing the risk of bias of SRs), except for methods for summarizing evidence (20%) or statistical synthesis (26%). A minority reported methods for handling unique aspects of overviews (e.g., overlap in the primary studies [30%], discrepant or missing data [14%], and discordant results/conclusions across reviews [20%]). CONCLUSION: Reporting of methods unique to overviews requires improvement. Our findings provide a benchmark of the completeness of reporting and may inform guidance on the conduct and reporting of overviews.
Authors: Charmie Fong; Simon Alesi; Aya Mousa; Lisa J Moran; Gary Deed; Suzanne Grant; Kriscia Tapia; Carolyn Ee Journal: Nutrients Date: 2022-05-30 Impact factor: 6.706
Authors: Esther A Boudewijns; Debbie Vermond; Rianne M J J van der Kleij; Niels H Chavannes; Onno C P van Schayck; Bruce Kirenga; Evelyn A Brakema Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2020-12-07 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Livia Puljak; Elena Parmelli; Matteo Capobussi; Marien Gonzalez-Lorenzo; Alessandro Squizzato; Lorenzo Moja; Nicoletta Riva Journal: Front Res Metr Anal Date: 2022-04-15