Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar

Abstract

Introduction Lung cancer (LC) is the most common cause of cancer death in the world and associated with significant economic burden. We conducted a review of published literature to identify prognostic factors associated with LC survival and determine which may be modifiable and could be targeted to improve outcomes. Methods The exceptionally large volume of LC prognostic research required a new staged approach to reviewing the literature. This comprised an initial mapping review of existing reviews or meta-analyses, based on titles and abstracts, followed by an overview of systematic reviews evaluating factors that independently contribute to lung cancer survival. The overview of reviews was based on full text papers and incorporated a more in-depth assessment of reviews evaluating modifiable factors. Results A large volume of published systematic reviews and meta-analyses were identified, but very few focused on modifiable factors for LC survival. Several modifiable factors were identified, which are potential candidates for targeted interventions aiming to improve cancer outcomes. The mapping review included 398 reviews, of which 207 investigated the independent effect of prognostic factors on lung cancer survival. The most frequently evaluated factors were novel biomarkers (86 biomarkers in 138 reviews). Only 15 modifiable factors were investigated in 20 reviews. Those associated with significant survival improvement included normal BMI/less weight loss, good performance status, not smoking/quitting after diagnosis, good pre-treatment quality of life, small gross volume tumour, early-stage tumour, lung resection undertaken by a thoracic/cardiothoracic surgeon, care being discussed by a multidisciplinary team, and timeliness of care. Conclusions The study utilised a novel approach for reviewing an extensive and complicated body of research evidence. It enabled us to address a broad research question and focus on a specific area of priority. The staged approach ensured the review remained relevant to the stakeholders throughout, whilst maintaining the use of objective and transparent methods. It also provided important information on the needs of future research. However, it required extensive planning, management, and ongoing reviewer training. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1186/s13643-019-1087-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Care transitions and social needs: A Geriatric Emergency care Applied Research (GEAR) Network scoping review and consensus statement

“…First, we may not have captured all relevant articles based on our search strategy. To manage a relatively large and disparate body of literature we adopted a pragmatic approach 95 and relied on existing systematic reviews within phase I. We included as many relevant key terms as possible within the search strategy and ensured, with the assistance of a medical librarian, that the search strategy identified…”

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

“…This overview will identify systematic reviews, and compare and contrast the results of several systematic reviews, as well as explore the reasons for the findings. As overviews are a new form of research synthesis, a number of challenges regarding the methodological conduct of an overview are described in the literature 31,33,52 . These issues will be discussed when presenting the findings of the overview.…”

A bespoke rapid evidence review process engaging stakeholders for supporting evolving and time-sensitive policy and clinical decision-making: reflection and lessons learned from the Wales Covid-19 Evidence Centre 2021-23

“…Our overall process and methods development were informed by guidance for conducting and reporting rapid evidence review products [7,[11][12][13][14][15][16][17][18]. The methods selected for our Rapid Reviews were adapted according to the topic area, type of review question, the extent of the evidence base, urgency of the questions, and the needs of the decision-makers.…”