↓ Skip to main content

What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary

Overview of attention for article published in Systematic Reviews, November 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (92nd percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (85th percentile)

Mentioned by

twitter
50 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page

Citations

dimensions_citation
143 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
215 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary
Published in
Systematic Reviews, November 2016
DOI 10.1186/s13643-016-0367-5
Pubmed ID
Authors

Michelle Pollock, Ricardo M. Fernandes, Lorne A. Becker, Robin Featherstone, Lisa Hartling

Abstract

Overviews of reviews (overviews) compile data from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there is limited methodological guidance available for researchers wishing to conduct overviews. The objective of this scoping review is to identify and collate all published and unpublished documents containing guidance for conducting overviews examining the efficacy, effectiveness, and/or safety of healthcare interventions. Our aims were to provide a map of existing guidance documents; identify similarities, differences, and gaps in the guidance contained within these documents; and identify common challenges involved in conducting overviews. We conducted an iterative and extensive search to ensure breadth and comprehensiveness of coverage. The search involved reference tracking, database and web searches (MEDLINE, EMBASE, DARE, Scopus, Cochrane Methods Studies Database, Google Scholar), handsearching of websites and conference proceedings, and contacting overview producers. Relevant guidance statements and challenges encountered were extracted, edited, grouped, abstracted, and presented using a qualitative metasummary approach. We identified 52 guidance documents produced by 19 research groups. Relatively consistent guidance was available for the first stages of the overview process (deciding when and why to conduct an overview, specifying the scope, and searching for and including systematic reviews). In contrast, there was limited or conflicting guidance for the latter stages of the overview process (quality assessment of systematic reviews and their primary studies, collecting and analyzing data, and assessing quality of evidence), and many of the challenges identified were also related to these stages. An additional, overarching challenge identified was that overviews are limited by the methods, reporting, and coverage of their included systematic reviews. This compilation of methodological guidance for conducting overviews of healthcare interventions will facilitate the production of future overviews and can help authors address key challenges they are likely to encounter. The results of this project have been used to identify areas where future methodological research is required to generate empirical evidence for overview methods. Additionally, these results have been used to update the chapter on overviews in the next edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 50 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 215 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
Netherlands 1 <1%
Unknown 214 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 15%
Student > Ph. D. Student 30 14%
Researcher 23 11%
Librarian 18 8%
Student > Doctoral Student 18 8%
Other 50 23%
Unknown 44 20%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 77 36%
Nursing and Health Professions 31 14%
Psychology 13 6%
Social Sciences 12 6%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 10 5%
Other 26 12%
Unknown 46 21%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 30. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 April 2020.
All research outputs
#1,213,254
of 24,137,933 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#172
of 2,099 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#22,565
of 311,873 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 42 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 24,137,933 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 94th percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,099 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.0. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 91% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 311,873 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 92% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 42 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.