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 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.

Saved in:
Bibliographic Details
Main Authors: Silva,Valter, Grande,Antonio Jose, Carvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegas de, Martimbianco,Ana Luiza Cabrera, Riera,Rachel
Format: Digital revista
Language:English
Published: Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM 2015
Online Access:http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802015000300206
Tags: Add Tag
No Tags, Be the first to tag this record!
id oai:scielo:S1516-31802015000300206
record_format ojs
spelling oai:scielo:S1516-318020150003002062015-09-29Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part IISilva,ValterGrande,Antonio JoseCarvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegas deMartimbianco,Ana Luiza CabreraRiera,Rachel Review [publication type] Study characteristics [publication type] Decision making Evidence-based practice Evidence-based medicine 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.info:eu-repo/semantics/openAccessAssociação Paulista de Medicina - APMSao Paulo Medical Journal v.133 n.3 20152015-06-01info:eu-repo/semantics/articletext/htmlhttp://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802015000300206en10.1590/1516-3180.2013.8150015
institution SCIELO
collection OJS
country Brasil
countrycode BR
component Revista
access En linea
databasecode rev-scielo-br
tag revista
region America del Sur
libraryname SciELO
language English
format Digital
author Silva,Valter
Grande,Antonio Jose
Carvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegas de
Martimbianco,Ana Luiza Cabrera
Riera,Rachel
spellingShingle Silva,Valter
Grande,Antonio Jose
Carvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegas de
Martimbianco,Ana Luiza Cabrera
Riera,Rachel
Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II
author_facet Silva,Valter
Grande,Antonio Jose
Carvalho,Alan Pedrosa Viegas de
Martimbianco,Ana Luiza Cabrera
Riera,Rachel
author_sort Silva,Valter
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
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.
publisher Associação Paulista de Medicina - APM
publishDate 2015
url http://old.scielo.br/scielo.php?script=sci_arttext&pid=S1516-31802015000300206
work_keys_str_mv AT silvavalter overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii
AT grandeantoniojose overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii
AT carvalhoalanpedrosaviegasde overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii
AT martimbiancoanaluizacabrera overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii
AT rierarachel overviewofsystematicreviewsanewtypeofstudypartii
_version_ 1756421612621529088