Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II
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 publ...
| Main Authors: | , , , , |
|---|---|
| Format: | Article |
| Language: | English |
| Published: |
Associação Paulista de Medicina
|
| Series: | São Paulo Medical Journal |
| Subjects: | |
| Online Access: | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802015000300206&lng=en&tlng=en |
| _version_ | 1798046479587213312 |
|---|---|
| author | Valter Silva Antonio Jose Grande Alan Pedrosa Viegas de Carvalho Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco Rachel Riera |
| author_facet | Valter Silva Antonio Jose Grande Alan Pedrosa Viegas de Carvalho Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco Rachel Riera |
| author_sort | Valter Silva |
| collection | DOAJ |
| description | 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. |
| first_indexed | 2024-04-11T23:38:17Z |
| format | Article |
| id | doaj.art-a59c421907cb45bf9deeaa18f4380fdf |
| institution | Directory Open Access Journal |
| issn | 1806-9460 |
| language | English |
| last_indexed | 2024-04-11T23:38:17Z |
| publisher | Associação Paulista de Medicina |
| record_format | Article |
| series | São Paulo Medical Journal |
| spelling | doaj.art-a59c421907cb45bf9deeaa18f4380fdf2022-12-22T03:56:53ZengAssociação Paulista de MedicinaSão Paulo Medical Journal1806-9460133320621710.1590/1516-3180.2013.8150015S1516-31802015000300206Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part IIValter SilvaAntonio Jose GrandeAlan Pedrosa Viegas de CarvalhoAna Luiza Cabrera MartimbiancoRachel RieraCONTEXT 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.http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802015000300206&lng=en&tlng=enReview [publication type]Study characteristics [publication type]Decision makingEvidence-based practiceEvidence-based medicine |
| spellingShingle | Valter Silva Antonio Jose Grande Alan Pedrosa Viegas de Carvalho Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco Rachel Riera Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II São Paulo Medical Journal Review [publication type] Study characteristics [publication type] Decision making Evidence-based practice Evidence-based medicine |
| title | Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II |
| title_full | Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II |
| title_fullStr | Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II |
| title_full_unstemmed | Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II |
| title_short | Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II |
| title_sort | overview of systematic reviews a new type of study part ii |
| topic | Review [publication type] Study characteristics [publication type] Decision making Evidence-based practice Evidence-based medicine |
| url | http://www.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802015000300206&lng=en&tlng=en |
| work_keys_str_mv | AT valtersilva overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii AT antoniojosegrande overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii AT alanpedrosaviegasdecarvalho overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii AT analuizacabreramartimbianco overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii AT rachelriera overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii |