Overviews of Reviews: Concept and Development

  1. José Antonio López-López 1
  2. María Rubio-Aparicio 2
  3. Julio Sánchez-Meca 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

  2. 2 Universitat d'Alacant
    info

    Universitat d'Alacant

    Alicante, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05t8bcz72

Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915,  1886-144X

Any de publicació: 2022

Volum: 34

Número: 2

Pàgines: 175-181

Tipus: Article

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2021.586 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAccés obert editor

Altres publicacions en: Psicothema

Objectius de Desenvolupament Sostenible

Resum

Background :In the last years, overviews of systematic reviews, or umbrella reviews, have seen a dramatic increase in their use. An overview aims to provide a summary of the included reviews and will often examine research questions beyond those addressed in the systematic reviews being synthesised. The purpose of this article is to provide some recommendations on how overviews should be conducted and reported. Method: A literature review was performed to identify relevant papers on both methodological and applied overviews. Results: The current literature recommends carrying out overviews by following similar steps to those of systematic reviews: (a) Defining the overview research question; (b) inclusion and exclusion criteria; (c) literature search; (d) data extraction; (e) assessment of risk of bias and reporting quality; (f) overview results; and (g) reporting the overview. Of special interest is how to address dependencies between the systematic reviews. Conclusions: Overviews allow evidence to be efficiently combined from multiple systematic reviews. This offers the possibility of translating and summarizing large amounts of information. As in primary studies and systematic reviews, conducting and reporting of overviews must meet appropriate quality standards

Referències bibliogràfiques

  • Andersson, G., Carlbring, P., Titov, N., & Lindefors, N. (2019). Internet interventions for adults with anxiety and mood disorders: A narrative umbrella review of recent meta-analyses. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64, 465-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743719839381
  • Aromataris, E., Fernández, R., Godfrey, C., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom P. (2020). Umbrella Reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-11
  • Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2010). Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326
  • Biondi-Zoccai, G. (2016). Umbrella reviews: Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies. Springer International.
  • Catalán-Matamoros, D., Gómez-Conesa, A., Stubbs, B., & Vancampfort, D. (2016). Exercise improves depressive symptoms in older adults: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Psychiatry Research, 244, 202-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.07.028
  • Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2019). The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Corral, S., Herrero, M., Martín, N., Gordejuela, A., & Herrero-Fernández, D. (2021). Psychological adjustment in adult adoptees: A meta-analysis. Psicothema, 33, 527-535. https://doi:10.7334/psicothema2021.98
  • Cruzes, D. S., & Dybå, T. (2011). Research synthesis in software engineering: A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, 53, 440-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.01.004
  • Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
  • Golder, S., & Wright, K. (2016). Searching evidence. In G. Biondi-Zoccai (Ed.), Umbrella reviews: Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies (pp. 95-106). Springer International.
  • Harbour, R., & Miller, J. (2001). A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. British Medical Journal, 323, 334-336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7308.334
  • Hartling, L., Chisholm, A., Thomson, D., & Dryden, D. M. (2012). A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PloS One, 7, e49667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0049667
  • Hennessy, E. A., & Johnson, B. T. (2020). Examining overlap of included studies in meta-reviews: Guidance for using the corrected covered area index. Research Synthesis Methods, 11, 134-145. https://doi. org/10.1002/jrsm.1390
  • Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Inthout, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Borm, G., & Goeman, J. J. (2015). Small studies are more heterogeneous than large ones: A meta-metaanalysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 860-869. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.017
  • Ioannidis, J. (2017). Next-generation systematic reviews: Prospective metaanalysis, individual-level data, networks and umbrella reviews. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 51, 1456-1458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bjsports-2017-097621
  • Johnson, B. T., Scott-Sheldon, L. A., & Carey, M. P. (2010). Meta-synthesis of health behavior change meta-analyses. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 2193-2198. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.155200
  • Lakens, D, Hilgard, J., & Staaks, J. (2016). On the reproducibility of metaanalyses: Six practical recommendations. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0126-3
  • Lecomte, T., Potvin, S., Corbière, M., Guay, S., Samson, C., Cloutier, B., Francoeur, A., Pennou, A., & Khazaal, Y. (2020). Mobile apps for mental health issues: Meta-review of meta-analyses. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8, e17458. https://doi.org/10.2196/17458
  • Littell, J. H. (2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14, 1-21. http://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1
  • López-López, J. A., Davies, S. R., Caldwell, D. M., Churchill, R., Peters, T. J., Tallon, D., Dawson, S., Wu, Q., Li, J., Taylor, A., Lewis, G., Kessler, D., Wiles, N., & Welton, N. J. (2019). The process and delivery of CBT for depression in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 49, 1937-1947. http://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171900120X
  • López-López, J. A., Page, M. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Higgins, J. P. (2018). Dealing with effect size multiplicity in systematic reviews and metaanalyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 9, 336-351. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/jrsm.1310
  • López-Nicolás, R., López-López, J. A., Rubio-Aparicio, M., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2021). A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000-2020). Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01644-z
  • Lunny, C., McKenzie, J. E., & McDonald, S. (2016). Retrieval of overviews of systematic reviews in MEDLINE was improved by the development of an objectively derived and validated search strategy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 74, 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2015.12.002
  • Moreau, D., & Gamble, B. (2020). Conducting a meta-analysis in the age of open science: Tools, tips, and practical recommendations. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000351
  • Onishi, A., & Furukawa, T. A. (2014). Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: Metaepidemiologic study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 1320- 1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.07.002
  • Page, M. J., Higgins, J. P., Clayton, G., Sterne, J. A., Hróbjartsson, A., & Savović, J. (2016). Empirical evidence of study design biases in randomized trials: Systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies. PloS One, 11, e0159267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159267
  • Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Aki, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., …Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  • Papageorgiou, S., & Biondi-Zoccai, G. (2016). Designing the review. In G. Biondi-Zoccai (Ed.), Umbrella reviews: Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies (pp. 57-80). Springer International.
  • Pieper, D., Antoine, S. L., Mathes, T., Neugebauer, E. A., & Eikermann, M. (2014). Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 368-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007
  • Pieper, D., Buechter, R., Jerinic, P., & Eikermann, M. (2012). Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 1267-1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2012.06.015
  • Polanin, J. R., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Hennessy, E. A. (2016). Estimating the difference between published and unpublished effect sizes: A metareview. Review of Educational Research, 86, 207-236. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582067
  • Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., Pieper, D., Tricco, A. C., Gates, M., Gates, A., & Hartling, L. (2019). Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR): A protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Systematic Reviews, 8, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1252-9
  • Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., Becker, L. A., Pieper, D., & Hartling, L. (2021). Overviews of Reviews. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page & Welch, V. A. (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
  • Rhodes, K. M., Turner, R. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2015). Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in metaanalyses of continuous outcome data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.012
  • Rubio-Aparicio, M., Marín-Martínez, F., Sánchez-Meca, J., & López-López, J. A. (2018). A methodological review of meta-analyses of the effectiveness of clinical psychology treatments. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2057-2073. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0973-8
  • Sala, G., Aksayli, N. D., Tatlidil, K. S., Tatsumi, T., Gondo, Y., & Gobet, F. (2019). Near and far transfer in cognitive training: A second-order meta-analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 5, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1525/ collabra.203
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., López-López, J. A., Núñez-Núñez, R. M., Rubio-Aparicio, M., López-García, J. J., López-Pina, J. A., Blázquez-Rincón, D., López-Ibáñez, C., & López-Nicolás, R. (2021). Improving the reporting quality of reliability generalization metaanalyses: The REGEMA checklist. Research Synthesis Methods, 12, 516-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1487
  • Schmidt, F. L., & Oh, I. S. (2013). Methods for second order metaanalysis and illustrative applications. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 204-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. obhdp.2013.03.002
  • Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R. J., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 408-412. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030
  • Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., & Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. British Medical Journal, 358, 1-9. https://doi. org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
  • Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15
  • Sterne, J. A., Jüni, P., Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002). Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta-epidemiological’research. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1513-1524. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1184
  • Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D., Moher, D., Becker, B. J., Sipe, T. A., & Thacker, S. B. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2008-2012. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
  • Trinquart, L., Dechartres, A., & Ravaud, P. (2013). Commentary: Meta-epidemiology, meta-meta-epidemiology or network metaepidemiology? International Journal of Epidemiology, 42, 1131-1133. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt137
  • Tsujimoto, Y., Tsutsumi, Y., Kataoka, Y., Banno, M., & Furukawa, T. A. (2022). Around ten percent of most recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their literature search strategy and were associated with potentially exaggerated results: A research-on-research study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 141, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.030
  • Valero-Aguayo, L., Rodríguez-Bocanegra, M., Ferro-García, R., & AscanioVelasco, L. (2021). Meta-analysis of the efficacy and effectiveness of parent child interaction therapy (PCIT) for child behaviour problems. Psicothema, 33, 544-555. https://doi:10.7334/psicothema2021.70
  • Vevea, J. L., Coburn, K., & Sutton, A. (2019). Publication bias. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis (pp. 383-429). Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Viechtbauer, W., & López-López, J. A. (2021). Location-Scale Models for Meta-Analysis [Manuscript submitted for publication].
  • Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Caldwell, D. M., Reeves, B. C., Shea, B., Davies, P., Kleijnen, J., Churchill, R., & ROBIS group (2016). ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69, 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet