BackgroundOverviews of systematic reviews attempt to systematically retrieve and summarise the results of multiple systematic reviews. Methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews are in their infancy. To date, there has been no evidence map of the methods used in overviews, thus making it difficult to determine the gaps and priorities for methods research. Our objectives were to develop and populate a comprehensive framework of methods for conducting, interpreting and reporting overviews (stage I) and to create an evidence map by mapping studies that have evaluated overview methods to the framework (stage II).MethodsWe searched methods collections (e.g. Cochrane Methodology Register, Meth4ReSyn library, AHRQ Effective Health Care Program) to identify eligible studies for both stages of this research. In stage I, cross-sectional studies, guidance documents and commentaries that described methods proposed for, or used in, overviews were used to develop and populate the framework of methods. Drafts and multiple iterations of the framework were discussed and refined by all authors. In stage II, we identified and described studies evaluating overview methods and mapped these evaluations to the framework.ResultsIn this paper, we present results for the four initial steps of conducting an overview: (a) specification of the purpose, objectives and scope, (b) specification of the eligibility criteria, (c) search methods and (d) data extraction. Twenty-nine studies mentioned or described methods relevant to one or more of these steps. In the developed framework, identified methods and approaches were grouped according to the steps an overview author would need to undertake. Fifteen studies evaluated identified methods, all of which mapped to the search methods step. These studies either reported the development and evaluation of a new search filter to retrieve systematic reviews or compared the performance of multiple filters.ConclusionGaps in the evaluation of methods were found for the majority of steps in the framework. More empirical studies are needed to evaluate the methods outlined and provide a comprehensive evidence map. The framework is useful for planning these evaluations and for planning methods required to deal with challenges that arise when conducting an overview.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-017-0617-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Objective To develop a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Design Development of the preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) statement. Participants Core team (seven individuals) led day-to-day operations, and an expert advisory group (three individuals) provided methodological advice. A panel of 100 experts (authors, editors, readers including members of the public or patients) was invited to participate in a modified Delphi exercise. 11 expert panellists (chosen on the basis of expertise, and representing relevant stakeholder groups) were invited to take part in a virtual face-to-face meeting to reach agreement (≥70%) on final checklist items. 21 authors of recently published overviews were invited to pilot test the checklist. Setting International consensus. Intervention Four stage process established by the EQUATOR Network for developing reporting guidelines in health research: project launch (establish a core team and expert advisory group, register intent), evidence reviews (systematic review of published overviews to describe reporting quality, scoping review of methodological guidance and author reported challenges related to undertaking overviews of reviews), modified Delphi exercise (two online Delphi surveys to reach agreement (≥70%) on relevant reporting items followed by a virtual face-to-face meeting), and development of the reporting guideline. Results From the evidence reviews, we drafted an initial list of 47 potentially relevant reporting items. An international group of 52 experts participated in the first Delphi survey (52% participation rate); agreement was reached for inclusion of 43 (91%) items. 44 experts (85% retention rate) completed the second Delphi survey, which included the four items lacking agreement from the first survey and five new items based on respondent comments. During the second round, agreement was not reached for the inclusion or exclusion of the nine remaining items. 19 individuals (6 core team and 3 expert advisory group members, and 10 expert panellists) attended the virtual face-to-face meeting. Among the nine items discussed, high agreement was reached for the inclusion of three and exclusion of six. Six authors participated in pilot testing, resulting in minor wording changes. The final checklist includes 27 main items (with 19 sub-items) across all stages of an overview of reviews. Conclusions PRIOR fills an important gap in reporting guidance for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. The checklist, along with rationale and example for each item, provides guidance for authors that will facilitate complete and transparent reporting. This will allow readers to assess the methods used in overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions and understand the trustworthiness and applicability of their findings.

BackgroundThe increases in STI rates since the late 1990s in Canada have occurred despite widespread primary care and targeted public health programs and in the setting of universal health care. More innovative interventions are required that would eliminate barriers to STI testing such as internet-based or mail-in home and community service testing for patients that are hard to reach, who refuse to go for clinician-based testing, or who decline an examination. Jurisdictions such as New Zealand and some American states currently use self-collected sampling, but without the required evidence to determine whether self-collected specimens are as accurate as clinician-collected specimens in terms of chlamydia and gonorrhea diagnostic accuracy. The objective of the review is to compare self-collected vaginal, urine, pharyngeal and rectal samples to our reference standard - clinician-collected cervical, urethral, pharyngeal and rectal sampling techniques to identify a positive specimen using nucleic acid amplification test assays.MethodsThe hierarchical summary receiver operating characteristic and the fixed effect models were used to assess the accuracy of comparable specimens that were collected by patients compared to clinicians. Sensitivity and specificity estimates with 95% confidence intervals (CI) were reported as our main outcome measures.FindingsWe included 21 studies based on over 6100 paired samples. Fourteen included studies examined chlamydia only, 6 compared both gonorrhea and chlamydia separately in the same study, and one examined gonorrhea. The six chlamydia studies comparing self-collection by vaginal swab to a clinician-collected cervical swab had the highest sensitivity (92%, 95% CI 87-95) and specificity (98%, 95% CI 97-99), compared to other specimen-types (urine/urethra or urine/cervix). Six studies compared urine self-samples to urethra clinician-collected samples in males and produced a sensitivity of 88% (95% CI 83-93) and a specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.94-0.99). Taking into account that urine samples may be less sensitive than cervical samples, eight chlamydia studies that compared urine self-collected verses clinician-collected cervical samples had a sensitivity of 87% (95% CI 81-91) and high specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00). For gonorrhea testing, self-collected urine samples compared to clinician-collected urethra samples in males produced a sensitivity of 92% (95% CI 83-97) and specificity of 99% (95% CI 0.98-1.00).ConclusionThe sensitivity and specificity of vaginal self-collected swabs compared to swabs collected by clinicians supports the use of vaginal swab as the recommended specimen of choice in home-based screening for chlamydia and gonorrhea. Urine samples for gonorrhea collected by men had comparably high sensitivity and specificity, so could be recommended as they can be left at room temperature for several days, allowing for the possibility of mail-in home-based testing. In populations that may not go for testing at all, do not have the option of clinical testing, or who r...