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...

Full description

Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Valter Silva, Antonio Jose Grande, Alan Pedrosa Viegas de Carvalho, Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco, Rachel Riera
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
id doaj-a59c421907cb45bf9deeaa18f4380fdf
record_format Article
spelling doaj-a59c421907cb45bf9deeaa18f4380fdf2020-11-25T01:57:08ZengAssociação 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
collection DOAJ
language English
format Article
sources DOAJ
author Valter Silva
Antonio Jose Grande
Alan Pedrosa Viegas de Carvalho
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco
Rachel Riera
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
author_facet Valter Silva
Antonio Jose Grande
Alan Pedrosa Viegas de Carvalho
Ana Luiza Cabrera Martimbianco
Rachel Riera
author_sort Valter Silva
title 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_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_sort overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. part ii
publisher Associação Paulista de Medicina
series São Paulo Medical Journal
issn 1806-9460
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.
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
_version_ 1724976161543421952