Are overviews of (systematic) reviews really of good quality and transparent information?

Article type
Authors
Li L1, Yang K2, Han D3, Tian J2, Sun T4
1Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, School of Basic Medical Science of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China; The first Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
2Evidence Based Medicine Center of Lanzhou University, School of Basic Medical Science of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
3The second Clinical Medical College of Lanzhou University, Lanzhou 730000, China
4Shanghai Institute of Digestive Disease, Shanghai Jiao-Tong University School of Medicine Ren-ji Hospital, Shanghai 200001, China
Abstract
Background: Overviews of (systematic) reviews, or umbrella reviews, are designed to compile evidence from multiple systematic reviews of interventions into one document and provide the reader with a quick overview relevant to a specific decision.

Objectives: To evaluate reporting and methodological qualities of overviews of reviews.

Methods: Searches were conducted using ('overview’ AND ('meta analys*’ OR 'systematic review*’)) OR 'umbrella review’ in title/abstract in PubMed, the Cochrane library, EMBASE, ISI Web of Knowledge. All searches were conducted in February 2010, and updated in September 2010. We included those overviews that only included systematic reviews or meta-analyses. We developed an 18-item assessment tool to assess the methodological and reporting qualities of overviews of systematic reviews. Two independent reviewers assessed the qualities with this checklist, and resolved differences with a third reviewer.

Results: We found 41 overviews of systematic reviews, whose mean total reporting and methodological score was 10.78 (SD3.84) of 18 items and 3.05 (SD2.09) of 8items. Some necessary items for the reporting and methodological qualities in the overview were not reported, for example 69% mentioned inclusion and exclusion criteria, 76% mentioned information sources, 49% mentioned review selection, 44% mentioned data collection, 7% mentioned reporting quality assessment, 46% mentioned methodological quality assessment, and 20% mentioned quality of evidence assessment.

Conclusions: The reporting and methodological qualities of overviews of systematic reviews were very poor, and there is still much room for improvement.