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.

Background Systematic reviews (SRs) are being published at an accelerated rate. Decision makers are often faced with the challenge of comparing and choosing between multiple SRs on the same topic. We surveyed individuals in the healthcare field to understand what criteria they use to compare and select one or more SRs from multiple on the same topic. Methods We developed a survey with 21 open and closed questions. We disseminated it through social media and professional networks. Results Of the 684 respondents, 25% were health practitioners, 9% policymakers, 39% researchers, and 13% were students. Policymakers, practitioners and researchers frequently sought out SRs (98.1%) as a source of evidence to inform decision making. They frequently (97.7%) found more than one SR on a given topic of interest to them. Half (50%) struggled to choose the most valid and trustworthy SR amongst multiple. These difficulties related to lack of time (55.2%), insufficient skills/ experience in quality appraisal (27.7%), and difficulty comparing different SRs (54.3%). Respondents compared SRs based on: relevance to their question of interest; its methodological quality, and recency of SR search date. Conclusions The exponential growth in the number of SRs leads to duplication of research on similar questions and compounds the problem of identifying which evidence is of the highest quality for decision makers. Failure to critically appraise and choose the highest quality SRs means that practice and policy decisions may not reflect the best evidence, the implementation of better intervention strategies is delayed, and patients may unduly suffer.

Introduction: An increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. Overviews of systematic reviews aim to address these challenges by summarising results of SRs and making sense of potentially discrepant SR results and conclusions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same topic. Since this tool pre-dates the advent of overviews, it has been inconsistently applied in this context. Our study aims to (a) replicate assessments done in a sample of overviews using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (b) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency, and comprehensiveness, and (c) describe how overviews address discordance in results across multiple SRs. Methods and Analysis: We will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000-2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for overviews assessing discordance. This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos, and Cochrane Database for overviews. We will include any overviews using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 overviews screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate Jadad assessments in overviews. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the overviews’ assessment. Ethics and Dissemination: No ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance in SRs.

Where a licence is displayed above, please note the terms and conditions of the licence govern your use of this document.When citing, please reference the published version. Take down policy While the University of Birmingham exercises care and attention in making items available there are rare occasions when an item has been uploaded in error or has been deemed to be commercially or otherwise sensitive.

IntroductionAn increasing growth of systematic reviews (SRs) presents notable challenges for decision-makers seeking to answer clinical questions. In 1997, an algorithm was created by Jadad to assess discordance in results across SRs on the same question. Our study aims to (1) replicate assessments done in a sample of studies using the Jadad algorithm to determine if the same SR would have been chosen, (2) evaluate the Jadad algorithm in terms of utility, efficiency and comprehensiveness, and (3) describe how authors address discordance in results across multiple SRs.Methods and analysisWe will use a database of 1218 overviews (2000–2020) created from a bibliometric study as the basis of our search for studies assessing discordance (called discordant reviews). This bibliometric study searched MEDLINE (Ovid), Epistemonikos and Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews for overviews. We will include any study using Jadad (1997) or another method to assess discordance. The first 30 studies screened at the full-text stage by two independent reviewers will be included. We will replicate the authors’ Jadad assessments. We will compare our outcomes qualitatively and evaluate the differences between our Jadad assessment of discordance and the authors’ assessment.Ethics and disseminationNo ethics approval was required as no human subjects were involved. In addition to publishing in an open-access journal, we will disseminate evidence summaries through formal and informal conferences, academic websites, and across social media platforms. This is the first study to comprehensively evaluate and replicate Jadad algorithm assessments of discordance across multiple SRs.