Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews

Identification of guidance needs

Karen A. Robinson, Evelyn P. Whitlock, Maya O'Neil, Johanna K. Anderson, Lisa Hartling, Donna M. Dryden, Mary Butler, Sydne J. Newberry, Melissa McPheeters, Nancy D. Berkman, Jennifer S. Lin, Stephanie Chang

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development. Methods: We searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions. Results: There was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews. Conclusions: There remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number60
JournalSystematic Reviews
Volume3
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Jun 23 2014

Fingerprint

Evidence-Based Practice
Uncertainty
Interviews
Delivery of Health Care
Research
Data Accuracy

Keywords

  • evidence-based practice centers
  • systematic review methods
  • using existing reviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Robinson, K. A., Whitlock, E. P., O'Neil, M., Anderson, J. K., Hartling, L., Dryden, D. M., ... Chang, S. (2014). Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: Identification of guidance needs. Systematic Reviews, 3(1), [60]. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-60

Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews : Identification of guidance needs. / Robinson, Karen A.; Whitlock, Evelyn P.; O'Neil, Maya; Anderson, Johanna K.; Hartling, Lisa; Dryden, Donna M.; Butler, Mary; Newberry, Sydne J.; McPheeters, Melissa; Berkman, Nancy D.; Lin, Jennifer S.; Chang, Stephanie.

In: Systematic Reviews, Vol. 3, No. 1, 60, 23.06.2014.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Robinson, KA, Whitlock, EP, O'Neil, M, Anderson, JK, Hartling, L, Dryden, DM, Butler, M, Newberry, SJ, McPheeters, M, Berkman, ND, Lin, JS & Chang, S 2014, 'Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: Identification of guidance needs', Systematic Reviews, vol. 3, no. 1, 60. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-3-60
Robinson, Karen A. ; Whitlock, Evelyn P. ; O'Neil, Maya ; Anderson, Johanna K. ; Hartling, Lisa ; Dryden, Donna M. ; Butler, Mary ; Newberry, Sydne J. ; McPheeters, Melissa ; Berkman, Nancy D. ; Lin, Jennifer S. ; Chang, Stephanie. / Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews : Identification of guidance needs. In: Systematic Reviews. 2014 ; Vol. 3, No. 1.
@article{6b80f6a101f943a69edef4a88fde656a,
title = "Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: Identification of guidance needs",
abstract = "Background: An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development. Methods: We searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions. Results: There was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews. Conclusions: There remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.",
keywords = "evidence-based practice centers, systematic review methods, using existing reviews",
author = "Robinson, {Karen A.} and Whitlock, {Evelyn P.} and Maya O'Neil and Anderson, {Johanna K.} and Lisa Hartling and Dryden, {Donna M.} and Mary Butler and Newberry, {Sydne J.} and Melissa McPheeters and Berkman, {Nancy D.} and Lin, {Jennifer S.} and Stephanie Chang",
year = "2014",
month = "6",
day = "23",
doi = "10.1186/2046-4053-3-60",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "3",
journal = "Systematic Reviews",
issn = "2046-4053",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews

T2 - Identification of guidance needs

AU - Robinson, Karen A.

AU - Whitlock, Evelyn P.

AU - O'Neil, Maya

AU - Anderson, Johanna K.

AU - Hartling, Lisa

AU - Dryden, Donna M.

AU - Butler, Mary

AU - Newberry, Sydne J.

AU - McPheeters, Melissa

AU - Berkman, Nancy D.

AU - Lin, Jennifer S.

AU - Chang, Stephanie

PY - 2014/6/23

Y1 - 2014/6/23

N2 - Background: An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development. Methods: We searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions. Results: There was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews. Conclusions: There remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.

AB - Background: An exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development. Methods: We searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions. Results: There was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews. Conclusions: There remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.

KW - evidence-based practice centers

KW - systematic review methods

KW - using existing reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84907271912&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84907271912&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/2046-4053-3-60

DO - 10.1186/2046-4053-3-60

M3 - Article

VL - 3

JO - Systematic Reviews

JF - Systematic Reviews

SN - 2046-4053

IS - 1

M1 - 60

ER -