Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
. 2018 Mar 1;7(1):39.
doi: 10.1186/s13643-018-0695-8.

An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview

Harriet Hunt  1 , Alex Pollock  2 , Pauline Campbell  2 , Lise Estcourt  3 , Ginny Brunton  4
Affiliations

An introduction to overviews of reviews: planning a relevant research question and objective for an overview

Harriet Hunt et al. Syst Rev. .

Abstract

Background: Overviews of systematic reviews are a relatively new approach to synthesising evidence, and research methods and associated guidance are developing. Within this paper we aim to help readers understand key issues which are essential to consider when taking the first steps in planning an overview. These issues relate to the development of clear, relevant research questions and objectives prior to the development of an overview protocol.

Methods: Initial discussions and key concepts for this paper were formed during a workshop on overview methods at the 2016 UK Cochrane Symposium, at which all members of this author group presented work and contributed to wider discussions. Detailed descriptions of the various key features of overviews and their different objectives were created by the author group based upon current evidence (Higgins J, Green S. Cochrane Handbook Syst Rev Interv. 2011;4:5, Pollock M, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:190-205, Pollock A, et al. Cochrane overviews of reviews: exploring the methods and challenges. UK and Ireland: Cochrane Symposium; 2016, Pieper D, et al. Res Syn Meth. 2014;5:187-99, Lunny C, et al. Sys Rev. 2016;5:4-12, Hartling L, et al. Comparing multiple treatments: an introduction to overviews of reviews. In 23rd Cochrane Colloquium; 2015, Hartling L, et al. Plos One. 2012;7:1-8, Ballard M, Montgomery P. Res Syn Meth. 2017;8:92-108) and author experiences conducting overviews.

Results: Within this paper we introduce different types of overviews and suggest common research questions addressed by these overviews. We briefly reflect on the key features and objectives of the example overviews discussed.

Conclusions: Clear decisions relating to the research questions and objectives are a fundamental first step during the initial planning stages for an overview. Key stakeholders should be involved at the earliest opportunity to ensure that the planned overview is relevant and meaningful to the potential end users of the overview. Following best practice in common with other forms of systematic evidence synthesis, an overview protocol should be published, ensuring transparency and reducing opportunities for introduction of bias in the conduct of the overview.

Keywords: Evidence synthesis; Overview; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

Authors’ information

Not applicable.

Ethics approval and consent to participate

As this work is an overview of existing systematic reviews and uses secondary anonymised data without access to individual identifiers, approval and consent to participate was not required.

Consent for publication

All authors have provided consent for publication.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

References

    1. Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, Sampson M, Tricco AC, Catalá-López F, Li L, Reid EK, Sarkis-Onofre R, Epidemiology MD. reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS medicine. 2016;13(5):e1002028. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1002028. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Hartling L, et al. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One. 2012;7(11):e49667. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0049667. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Res. Methodology. 2011;11(1):15–21. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Lunny C, et al. Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1—purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):231. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0617-1. - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Pollock A, et al. Selecting and implementing overview methods: implications from five exemplar overviews. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1):145. doi: 10.1186/s13643-017-0534-3. - DOI - PMC - PubMed

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources