Librarians' Electronic Resource Reviews Network (LERRN): a free citation database for resource reviews.

Electronic resource reviews written by librarians are a valuable way to identify potential content platforms and stay current on new resources. Resource-focused articles can also assist with learning about useful features, training others, and marketing to potential user groups. However, articles evaluating or highlighting innovative uses of resources may be published in disparate journals or online platforms and are not collocated. Small or solo-staffed libraries may not subscribe to library and information sciences databases or journals that contain reviews of electronic resources. And many of these reviews or other useful articles are open access. With this in mind, the main aim of the LERRN citation database was to create a freely available citation database that brings together electronic resource reviews and other content that can assist librarians in appraising and using electronic resources.

How can clinicians choose between conflicting and discordant systematic reviews? A replication study of the Jadad algorithm.

INTRODUCTION: The exponential growth of published systematic reviews (SRs) presents challenges for decision makers seeking to answer clinical, public health or policy questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad et al. to choose the best SR across multiple. Our study aims to replicate author assessments using the Jadad algorithm to determine: (i) if we chose the same SR as the authors; and (ii) if we reach the same results. METHODS: We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database of SRs. We included any study using the Jadad algorithm. We used consensus building strategies to operationalise the algorithm and to ensure a consistent approach to interpretation. RESULTS: We identified 21 studies that used the Jadad algorithm to choose one or more SRs. In 62% (13/21) of cases, we were unable to replicate the Jadad assessment and ultimately chose a different SR than the authors. Overall, 18 out of the 21 (86%) independent Jadad assessments agreed in direction of the findings despite 13 having chosen a different SR. CONCLUSIONS: Our results suggest that the Jadad algorithm is not reproducible between users as there are no prescriptive instructions about how to operationalise the algorithm. In the absence of a validated algorithm, we recommend that healthcare providers, policy makers, patients and researchers address conflicts between review findings by choosing the SR(s) with meta-analysis of RCTs that most closely resemble their clinical, public health, or policy question, are the most recent, comprehensive (i.e. number of included RCTs), and at the lowest risk of bias.

Effects of Exercise on Sleep in Older Adults: An Overview of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses.

We aimed to systematically analyze reviews of randomized clinical trials that investigate the overall effect of exercise and of different types of exercise on sleep in older adults. Meta-analysis was performed to obtain the standardized mean difference of the effect of the different types of exercise. Twenty systematic reviews published between 2012 and 2020 met the inclusion criteria of this overview. Moderate significant effects of exercise were observed on overall sleep quality and its subjective components (quality, duration, latency, habitual efficiency, medication use, and daytime dysfunction). Among the types of exercise, sensitivity analysis revealed significant effects of Pilates, Tai Chi, and Baduanjin Qigong on sleep quality. Exercise has a positive effect on sleep quality in older people. Our findings are extremely important, especially for decision makers in the health area, permitting the planning of actions and evidence-based decision making. PROSPERO registration number: CRD42020222469.

Managing overlap of primary study results across systematic reviews: practical considerations for authors of overviews of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Overviews often identify and synthesise a large number of systematic reviews on the same topic, which is likely to lead to overlap (i.e. duplication) in primary studies across the reviews. Using a primary study result multiple times in the same analysis overstates its sample size and number of events, falsely leading to greater precision in the analysis. This paper aims to: (a) describe types of overlapping data that arise from the same primary studies reported across multiple reviews, (b) describe methods to identify and explain overlap of primary study data, and (c) present six case studies illustrating different approaches to manage overlap. METHODS: We first updated the search in PubMed for methods from the MOoR framework relating to overlap of primary studies. One author screened the studies titles and abstracts, and any full-text articles retrieved, extracted methods data relating to overlap of primary studies and mapped it to the overlap methods from the MOoR framework. We also describe six case studies as examples of overviews that use specific overlap methods across the steps in the conduct of an overview. For each case study, we discuss potential methodological implications in terms of limitations, efficiency, usability, and resource use. RESULTS: Nine methods studies were found and mapped to the methods identified by the MOoR framework to address overlap. Overlap methods were mapped across four steps in the conduct of an overview - the eligibility criteria step, the data extraction step, the assessment of risk of bias step, and the synthesis step. Our overview case studies used multiple methods to reduce overlap at different steps in the conduct of an overview. CONCLUSIONS: Our study underlines that there is currently no standard methodological approach to deal with overlap in primary studies across reviews. The level of complexity when dealing with overlap can vary depending on the yield, trends and patterns of the included literature and the scope of the overview question. Choosing a method might be dependent on the number of included reviews and their primary studies. Gaps in evaluation of methods to address overlap were found and further investigation in this area is needed.

Acupuncture-related therapy for cancer-related insomnia: An overview of systematic reviews and meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: The number of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (SRs/MAs) on acupuncture therapy for CRI is increasing; however, the credibility of the evidence remains unclear with controversial results, necessitating a comprehensive evaluation. OBJECTIVE: We aimed to critically assess the evidence in SRs/MAs regarding the effectiveness of acupuncture therapy for CRI from various aspects and conduct an exploratory analysis to identify potential issues. METHOD: Two reviewers conducted comprehensive searches in eight databases. SRs/MAs of randomized controlled trials are included. After screening according to inclusion and exclusion criteria, two reviewers extracted data from eligible SRs/MAs and conducted a detailed assessment of methodological quality, risk of bias, and quality of evidence using AMSTAR-2, ROBIS, and GRADE tools. Meanwhile, we calculated the Corrected Covered Area (CCA) leveraging the GROOVE tool. After manually excluding duplicate studies, we assess the risk of bias of primary studies extracted from SRs/MAs and conducted exploratory meta-analysis. RESULT: The comprehensive analysis included 10 SRs/MAs. The AMSRAT-2 results indicate significant methodological flaws in SRs/MAs, with the main issues focusing on the lack of provision of exclusion checklist for the studies. Furthermore, over half of the SRs/MAs have a high risk of bias due to incomplete retrieval and failure to follow the protocol. Most SRs/MAs demonstrated considerable completeness in reporting quality. Notably, the overall level of evidence is low. High overlap indicates redundant SRs/MAs. Exploratory analysis suggests that acupuncture therapy may be effective for CRI; however, with a high risk of bias, caution is needed in interpreting the results. Sensitivity analysis results are stable, and the funnel plot indicates no publication bias. Most SRs/MAs acknowledge the safety of acupuncture. CONCLUSION: Currently, the credibility of acupuncture therapy for treating CRI is low and improvements are needed in methodology, risk of bias, and quality of reporting. Acupuncture therapy shows potential but lacks sufficient support; high-level evidence is warranted to elucidate the effectiveness of acupuncture in treating CRI.

Clinical trials landscape in a lower-middle-income country (Pakistan).

In recent times, there have been calls from within the developing nations for increased ownership by governmental research bodies and universities of the priority research setting and research that aligns with national health strategies. This is a review paper of the studies that have been published on clinical trials in developing countries, with a focus mainly on Pakistan. The literature review used online databases such as PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar, World Health Organization (WHO) International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP), and ClinicalTrials.gov trial registries to search for clinical trials conducted in Pakistan between January 2000 and December 2022 and analyzed. The results revealed that clinical research in Pakistan is hindered by a number of barriers, including a lack of funding, skilled personnel, and regulatory issues. Lack of funding is a common obstacle, and the majority of funding for clinical trials originates from Western countries or pharmaceutical companies established in the West. In conclusion, clinical studies in developing countries, especially in Pakistan, are hindered by a plethora of barriers, and to improve the current state, increasing funding, streamlining ethical approval procedures, simplifying regulatory systems, addressing cultural and religious concerns, and participating in global efforts to bridge the gap in health-based research are crucial.

Reporting quality of acupuncture overviews: A methodological investigation based on the PRIOR statement.

OBJECTIVE: Acupuncture overviews are increasing rapidly; however, their reporting quality is yet unclear. We aimed to investigate the reporting quality of relevant overviews according to the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. METHODS: We systematically searched PubMed from inception to August 16, 2022 for overviews on acupuncture therapies. Reporting quality of included overviews was evaluated using the PRIOR statement, and the results were cross-checked. Multiple linear regression analysis was used to assess the predictors of the reporting completeness. GraphPad 9.4 was utilized to generate an evidence map, Excel 2019 was used to extract and manage data, and R 4.2.3 was used for data analysis. RESULTS: A total of 49 overviews published from 2006 to 2022 were included, of which China ranked first with 38 overviews. The most frequently searched database was PubMed/ Medline (n = 48, 98%), and commonly used methodological quality assessment tool was AMSTAR-2 (n = 14, 29%). The overarching themes centered on acupuncture for obstetrics, gynecology, reproductive diseases, as well as depression, anxiety, and insomnia. Reporting quality needs to be improved involving the definition of systematic reviews (SRs), overlap of primary studies and SRs, methods for managing discrepant data across SRs, risk of bias in primary studies, heterogeneity, and sensitivity analysis of synthesized results, reporting bias assessment, and registration and protocol. Moreover, publication in recent years and receiving funding support were significantly associated with higher overall reporting quality score (P < 0.05). CONCLUSION: Based on the PRIOR statement, this methodological study indicates that the reporting quality of the included acupuncture overviews is poor. In the future, authors of overviews are encouraged to use the PRIOR statement for standardized reporting. Furthermore, it is recommended that journal editors mandate the inclusion of this statement in authors' reports and require a complete PRIOR checklist.

Only half of the authors of overviews of exercise-related interventions use some strategy to manage overlapping primary studies-a metaresearch study.

OBJECTIVES: The conduct of systematic reviews (SRs) and overviews share several similarities. However, because the unit of analysis for overviews is the SRs, there are some unique challenges. One of the most critical issues to manage when conducting an overview is the overlap of data across the primary studies included in the SRs. This metaresearch study aimed to describe the frequency of strategies to manage the overlap in overviews of exercise-related interventions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A systematic search in MEDLINE (Ovid), Embase (Ovid), Cochrane Library, Epistemonikos, and other sources was conducted from inception to June 2022. We included overviews of SRs that considered primary studies and evaluated the effectiveness of exercise-related interventions for any health condition. The overviews were screened by two authors independently, and the extraction was performed by one author and checked by a second. We found 353 overviews published between 2005 and 2022 that met the inclusion criteria. RESULTS: One hundred and sixty-four overviews (46%) used at least one strategy to visualize, quantify, or resolve overlap, with a matrix (32/164; 20%), absolute frequency (34/164; 21%), and authors' algorithms (24/164; 15%) being the most used methods, respectively. From 2016 onwards, there has been a trend toward increasing the use of some strategies to manage overlap. Of the 108 overviews that used some strategy to resolve the overlap, ie, avoiding double or multiple counting of primary study data, 79 (73%) succeeded. In overviews where no strategies to manage overlap were reported (n = 189/353; 54%), 16 overview authors (8%) recognized this as a study limitation. CONCLUSION: Although there is a trend toward increasing its use, only half of the authors of the overviews of exercise-related interventions used a strategy to visualize, quantify, or resolve overlap in the primary studies' data. In the future, authors should report such strategies to communicate more valid results.

Risk factors predicting hospital-acquired pressure injury in adult patients: An overview of reviews.

BACKGROUND: Hospital-acquired pressure injuries remain a significant patient safety threat. Current well-known pressure injury risk assessment tools have many limitations and therefore do not accurately predict the risk of pressure injury development over diverse populations. A contemporary understanding of the risk factors predicting pressure injury in adult hospitalised patients will inform pressure injury prevention and future researchers considering risk assessment tool development may benefit from our summary and synthesis of risk factors. OBJECTIVE: To summarise and synthesise systematic reviews that identify risk factors for hospital-acquired pressure injury development in adult patients. DESIGN: An overview of systematic reviews. METHODS: Cochrane and the Joanna Briggs Institute methodologies guided this overview. The Cochrane library, CINAHL, MEDLINE, and Embase databases were searched for relevant articles published in English from January 2008 to September 2022. Two researchers independently screened articles against the predefined inclusion and exclusion criteria, extracted data and assessed the quality of the included reviews using "a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews" (AMSTAR version 2). Data were categorised using an inductive approach and synthesised according to the recent pressure injury conceptual frameworks. RESULTS: From 11 eligible reviews, 37 risk factors were categorised inductively into 14 groups of risk factors. From these, six groups were classified into two domains: four to mechanical boundary conditions and two to susceptibility and tolerance of the individual. The remaining eight groups were evident across both domains. Four main risk factors, including diabetes, length of surgery or intensive care unit stay, vasopressor use, and low haemoglobin level were synthesised. The overall quality of the included reviews was low in five studies (45 %) and critically low in six studies (55 %). CONCLUSIONS: Our findings highlighted the limitations in the methodological quality of the included reviews that may have influenced our results regarding risk factors. Current risk assessment tools and conceptual frameworks do not fully explain the complex and changing interactions amongst risk factors. This may warrant the need for more high-quality research, such as cohort studies, focussing on predicting hospital-acquired pressure injury in adult patients, to reconsider these risk factors we synthesised. REGISTRATION: This overview was registered with the PROSPERO (CRD42022362218) on 27 September 2022.

Estimating pairwise overlap in umbrella reviews: Considerations for using the corrected covered area (CCA) index methodology.

Umbrella reviews (reviews of systematic reviews) are increasingly used to synthesize findings from systematic reviews. One important challenge when pooling data from several systematic reviews is publication overlap, that is, the same primary publications being included in multiple reviews. Pieper et al. have proposed using the corrected covered area (CCA) index to quantify the degree of overlap between systematic reviews to be pooled in an umbrella review. Recently, this methodology has been integrated in Excel- or R-based tools for easier use. In this short letter, we highlight an important consideration for using the CCA methodology for pairwise overlap assessment, especially when reviews include varying numbers of primary publications, and we urge researchers to fine-tune this method and exercise caution when review exclusion decisions are based on its output.

Clinical utility of overviews on adverse events of pharmacological interventions.

BACKGROUND: Overviews (i.e., systematic reviews of systematic reviews, meta-reviews, umbrella reviews) are a relatively new type of evidence synthesis. Among others, one reason to conduct an overview is to investigate adverse events (AEs) associated with a healthcare intervention. Overviews aim to provide easily accessible information for healthcare decision-makers including clinicians. We aimed to evaluate the clinical utility of overviews investigating AEs. METHODS: We used a sample of 27 overviews exclusively investigating drug-related adverse events published until 2021 identified in a prior project. We defined clinical utility as the extent to which overviews are perceived to be useful in clinical practice. Each included overview was assigned to one of seven pharmacological experts with expertise on the topic of the overview. The clinical utility and value of these overviews were determined using a self-developed assessment tool. This included four open-ended questions and a ranking of three clinical utility statements completed by clinicians. We calculated frequencies for the ranked clinical utility statements and coded the answers to the open-ended questions using an inductive approach. RESULTS: The overall agreement with the provided statements was high. According to the assessments, 67% of the included overviews generated new knowledge. In 93% of the assessments, the overviews were found to add value to the existing literature. The overviews were rated as more useful than the individual included systematic reviews (SRs) in 85% of the assessments. The answers to the open-ended questions revealed two key aspects of clinical utility in the included overviews. Firstly, it was considered useful that they provide a summary of available evidence (e.g., along with additional assessments, or across different populations, or in different settings that have not been evaluated together in the included SRs). Secondly, it was found useful if overviews conducted a new meta-analysis to answer specific research questions that had not been answered previously. CONCLUSIONS: Overviews on drug-related AEs are considered valuable for clinical practice by clinicians. They can make available evidence on AEs more accessible and provide a comprehensive view of available evidence. As the role of overviews evolves, investigations such as this can identify areas of value.

Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews: GROOVE tool.

Overlap of primary studies among systematic reviews (SRs) is one of the main methodological challenges when conducting overviews. If not assessed properly, overlapped primary studies may mislead findings, since they may have a major influence either in qualitative analyses or in statistical weight. Moreover, overlapping SRs may represent the existence of duplicated efforts. Matrices of evidence and the calculation of the overall corrected covered area (CCA) are appropriate methods to address this issue, but they seem to be not comprehensive enough. In this article we present Graphical Representation of Overlap for OVErviews (GROOVE), an easy-to-use tool for overview authors. Starting from a matrix of evidence, GROOVE provides the number of included primary studies and SRs included in the matrix; the absolute number of overlapped and non-overlapped primary studies; and an overall CCA assessment. The tool also provides a detailed CCA assessment for each possible pair of SRs (or "nodes"), with a graphical and easy-to-read representation of these results. Additionally, it includes an advanced optional usage, incorporating structural missingness in the matrix. In this article, we show the details about how to use GROOVE, what results it achieves and how the tool obtains these results. GROOVE is intended to improve the overlap assessment by making it easier, faster, and more friendly for both authors and readers. The tool is freely available at http://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/U2MS4 and https://es.cochrane.org/es/groovetool.

A new taxonomy was developed for overlap across 'overviews of systematic reviews': A meta-research study of research waste.

Multiple 'overviews of reviews' conducted on the same topic ("overlapping overviews") represent a waste of research resources and can confuse clinicians making decisions amongst competing treatments. We aimed to assess the frequency and characteristics of overlapping overviews. MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were searched for overviews that: synthesized reviews of health interventions and conducted systematic searches. Overlap was defined as: duplication of PICO eligibility criteria, and not reported as an update nor a replication. We categorized overview topics according to 22 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, overviews as broad or narrow in scope, and overlap as identical, nearly identical, partial, or subsumed. Subsummation was defined as when broad overviews subsumed the populations, interventions and at least one outcome of another overview. Of 541 overviews included, 169 (31%) overlapped across similar PICO, fell within 13 WHO ICD-10 medical classifications, and 62 topics. 148/169 (88%) overlapping overviews were broad in scope. Fifteen overviews were classified as having nearly identical overlap (9%); 123 partial overlap (73%), and 31 subsumed (18%) others. One third of overviews overlapped in content and a majority covered broad topic areas. A multiplicity of overviews on the same topic adds to the ongoing waste of research resources, time, and effort across medical disciplines. Authors of overviews can use this study and the sample of overviews to identify gaps in the evidence for future analysis, and topics that are already studied, which do not need to be duplicated.

Bibliometric study of 'overviews of systematic reviews' of health interventions: Evaluation of prevalence, citation and journal impact factor.

Overviews synthesising the results of multiple systematic reviews help inform evidence-based clinical practice. In this first of two companion papers, we evaluate the bibliometrics of overviews, including their prevalence and factors affecting citation rates and journal impact factor (JIF). We searched MEDLINE, Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR). We included overviews that: (a) synthesised reviews, (b) conducted a systematic search, (c) had a methods section and (d) examined a healthcare intervention. Multivariable regression was conducted to determine the association between citation density, JIF and six predictor variables. We found 1218 overviews published from 2000 to 2020; the majority (73%) were published in the most recent 5-year period. We extracted a selection of these overviews (n = 541; 44%) dated from 2000 to 2018. The 541 overviews were published in 307 journals; CDSR (8%), PLOS ONE (3%) and Sao Paulo Medical Journal (2%) were the most prevalent. The majority (70%) were published in journals with impact factors between 0.05 and 3.97. We found a mean citation count of 10 overviews per year, published in journals with a mean JIF of 4.4. In multivariable analysis, overviews with a high number of citations and JIFs had more authors, larger sample sizes, were open access and reported the funding source. An eightfold increase in the number of overviews was found between 2009 and 2020. We identified 332 overviews published in 2020, which is equivalent to one overview published per day. Overviews perform above average for the journals in which they publish.

Improving the usefulness of evidence concerning the effectiveness of implementation strategies for knowledge products in primary healthcare: protocol for a series of systematic reviews.

BACKGROUND: The literature on the implementation of knowledge products is extensive. However, this literature is still difficult to interpret for policymakers and other stakeholders when faced with choosing implementation strategies likely to bring about successful change in their health systems. This work has the particularity to examine the scope of this literature, and to clarify the effectiveness of implementation strategies for different knowledge products. Consequently, we aim to (1) determine the strengths and weaknesses of existing literature overviews; (2) produce a detailed portrait of the literature on implementation strategies for various knowledge products; and (3) assess the effectiveness of implementation strategies for each knowledge product identified and classify them. METHODS: We will use a three-phase approach consisting of a critical analysis of existing literature overviews, a systematic review of systematic reviews, and a series of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. We will follow the Cochrane Methodology for each of the three phases. Our eligibility criteria are defined following a PICOS approach: Population, individuals or stakeholders participating in healthcare delivery, specifically, healthcare providers, caregivers, and end users; Intervention, any type of strategy aiming to implement a knowledge product including, but not limited to, a decision support tool, a clinical practice guideline, a policy brief, or a decision-making tool, a one-pager, or a health intervention; Comparison, any comparator will be considered; Outcomes, phases 1 and 2-any outcome related to implementation strategies including, but not limited to, the measures of adherence/fidelity to the use of knowledge products, their acceptability, adoption, appropriateness, feasibility, adaptability, implementation costs, penetration/reach and sustainability; phase 3-any additional outcome related to patients (psychosocial, health behavioral, and clinical outcomes) or healthcare professionals (behavioral and performance outcomes); Setting, primary healthcare has to be covered. We will search MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE, Web of Science, PsycINFO, CINAHL, and the Cochrane Library from their inception onwards. For each phase, two reviewers will independently perform the selection of studies, data extraction, and assess their methodological quality. We will analyze extracted data, and perform narrative syntheses, and meta-analyses when possible. DISCUSSION: Our results could inform not only the overviews' methodology but also the development of an online platform for the implementation strategies of knowledge products. This platform could be useful for stakeholders in implementation science. SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION: Protocol registered on Open Science Framework, https://osf.io/eb8w2/.

[Normativity of overview report of the systematic review of acupuncture and moxibustion at home and abroad based on PRIO-harms scale].

OBJECTIVE: To evaluate and compare the normativity of overview report of systematic review (Overviews) of acupuncture and moxibustion at home and abroad so as to further improve the report quality of Overviews of acupuncture and moxibustion in China and provide reliable evidences. METHODS: The articles relevant with Overviews of acupuncture and moxibustion at home and abroad were retrieved by computer from the databases of CNKI, VIP, Wanfang, China BioMedical Literature database (SinoMed), PubMed, Embase and Conchrane Library, dated from the time of establishment to February 12, 2019. The preferred reporting items for Overviews (PRIO-harms) was adopted to evaluate their normativity and make the comparison of the articles between China and foreign countries. RESULTS: A total of 13 articles of Overviews of acupuncture and moxibustion were included, 9 articles of them were of Chinese version and the rest were of English version. The results of PRIO-harms indicated that the proportions of the item numbers related to adequate, partial and inadequate adherence of Chinese version were 3.7%, 63.8% and 32.5%, and those of English version were 12.0%, 57.4% and 30.6% respectively. The reports on the item 10 "additional search for primary studies", the item 12 "data items" and the item 26 "Dual/(co-)authorship" were inadequate adherence by 100% in the articles of both Chinese and English version. CONCLUSION: The overall information of English article report is better than Chinese one, but the reports of either Chinese or English articles are not so satisfactory. It is suggested that the Overviews report should be in reference to the specification in PRIO-harms and the Chinese researchers should study the advantages of English article report and improve the normalization and report quality so as to obtain the high-quality evidences in evidence-based medicine.

Effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes among older adults following emergency department discharge: Protocol for an overview of systematic reviews.

Background: Older adults are frequent users of Emergency departments (ED) and this trend will continue due to population ageing and the associated increase in healthcare needs. Older adults are vulnerable to adverse outcomes following ED discharge. A number of heterogeneous interventions have been developed and implemented to improve clinical outcomes among this cohort. A growing number of systematic reviews have synthesised evidence regarding ED interventions using varying methodologies. This overview aims to synthesise the totality of evidence in order to evaluate the effectiveness of interventions to reduce adverse outcomes in older adults discharged from the ED. Methods: To identify relevant reviews, the following databases will be searched: Cochrane Database of Systematic reviews, Joanna Briggs Institute Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, Databases of Abstracts of Reviews of Effects, PubMed, MEDLINE, Epistemonikos, Ageline, Embase, PEDro, Scopus, CINAHL and the PROSPERO register. The search for grey literature will include Open Grey and Grey Literature Reports. Systematic reviews of randomised controlled trials will be analysed to assess the effect of ED interventions on clinical and process outcomes in older adults. Methodological quality of the reviews will be assessed using the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 tool. The review will be reported in accordance to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses statement. Summary of findings will include a hierarchical rank of interventions based on estimates of effects and the quality of evidence. Discussion: This overview is required given the number of systematic reviews published regarding the effectiveness of various ED interventions for older adults at risk of adverse outcomes following discharge from the ED. There is a need to examine the totality of evidence using rigorous analytic techniques to inform best care and potentially develop a hierarchy of treatment options. PROSPERO registration: CRD42020145315 (28/04/2020).

Overviews of reviews incompletely report methods for handling overlapping, discordant, and problematic data.

OBJECTIVES: The aim of the study was to assess the completeness of reporting of methods in overviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Assessment of the adequacy of reporting of methods in a random sample of 50 overviews was based on a published framework of methods for conducting overviews. Descriptive summary statistics were presented. RESULTS: We screened 848 randomly selected abstracts to obtain the required 50 overviews. Overviews included a median of 13 (interquartile range 7-32) systematic reviews (SRs), 22% reported working from a protocol, 36% reported using reporting standards (e.g., Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses), and 34% reported using methodological guidance (e.g., Cochrane Handbook). Methods common to both overviews and SRs of primary studies were reported in majority of overviews (e.g., 56% framed the overview question by Population, Intervention(s), Comparison(s), Outcome(s) [PICO] elements; 44% reported eligibility criteria based on PICO, and 76% reported assessing the risk of bias of SRs), except for methods for summarizing evidence (20%) or statistical synthesis (26%). A minority reported methods for handling unique aspects of overviews (e.g., overlap in the primary studies [30%], discrepant or missing data [14%], and discordant results/conclusions across reviews [20%]). CONCLUSION: Reporting of methods unique to overviews requires improvement. Our findings provide a benchmark of the completeness of reporting and may inform guidance on the conduct and reporting of overviews.

Development and application of an outcome-centric approach for conducting overviews of reviews.

There are gaps in current guidance concerning how to conduct overviews of systematic reviews in an outcome-centric manner. Herein we summarize the methods and lessons learned from conducting 4 outcome-centric overviews to help inform the Canadian 24-Hour Movement Guidelines for Adults aged 18-64 years and Adults aged 65 years or older on the topics of resistance training, balance and functional training, sedentary behaviour, sleep duration. We defined "critical" and "important" outcomes a priori. We used AMSTAR 2 to assess review quality and sought 1 systematic review per outcome. If multiple reviews were required to address subgroups for an outcome, we calculated the corrected covered area (CCA) to quantify overlap. We report our methodology in a PRISMA table. Across the 4 overviews, authors reviewed 1110 full texts; 45 were retained (low to high quality per AMSTAR 2), representing 950 primary studies, enrolling over 5 385 500 participants. Of 46 outcomes, we identified data for 35. Nineteen outcomes required >1 review (CCA range: 0% to 71.4%). Our outcome-centric overviews addressed unique aspects of overviews, including selection and quality assessment of included reviews, and overlap. Lessons learned included consistent application of methodological principles to minimize bias and optimize reporting transparency. Novelty Overviews of reviews synthesize systematic reviews in a rigorous and transparent manner. Outcome-centric systematic reviews assess the quality of evidence for primary studies contributing to an outcome. This manuscript describes the development and application of extending the concept of outcome-centric systematic reviews to the design and conduct of outcome-centric overviews.

Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR): a protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions.

BACKGROUND: Overviews of reviews (i.e., overviews) compile information from multiple systematic reviews to provide a single synthesis of relevant evidence for healthcare decision-making. Despite their increasing popularity, there are currently no systematically developed reporting guidelines for overviews. This is problematic because the reporting of published overviews varies considerably and is often substandard. Our objective is to use explicit, systematic, and transparent methods to develop an evidence-based and agreement-based reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions (PRIOR, Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews). METHODS: We will develop the PRIOR reporting guideline in four stages, using established methods for developing reporting guidelines in health research. First, we will establish an international and multidisciplinary expert advisory board that will oversee the conduct of the project and provide methodological support. Second, we will use the results of comprehensive literature reviews to develop a list of prospective checklist items for the reporting guideline. Third, we will use a modified Delphi exercise to achieve a high level of expert agreement on the list of items to be included in the PRIOR reporting guideline. We will identify and recruit a group of up to 100 international experts who will provide input into the guideline in three Delphi rounds: the first two rounds will occur via online survey, and the third round will occur during a smaller (8 to 10 participants) in-person meeting that will use a nominal group technique. Fourth, we will produce and publish the PRIOR reporting guideline. DISCUSSION: A systematically developed reporting guideline for overviews could help to improve the accuracy, completeness, and transparency of overviews. This, in turn, could help maximize the value and impact of overviews by allowing more efficient interpretation and use of their research findings.