Types and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews in health care: a methodological study with published examples

Βουγιούκας, Κωνσταντίνος; Pamporis, Konstantinos; Vounzoulaki, Elpida; Karagiannis, Thomas; Haidich, Anna‐Bettina

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.11.003

Cited by 8 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 100 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We conducted an overview of reviews using the scoping review methodology given the breadth and nature of the research, using established scoping review processes. 18 , 19 We chose the scoping review methodology to map the literature on engagement. 20 This methodology is appropriate as we comprehensively mapped the breadth of the evidence in the current literature, identified thematic areas, and synthesized the evidence.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Lived experience and family engagement in psychiatry research: A scoping review of reviews

Hawke,

Sheikhan,

Rodak

2024

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundA growing body of research is addressing the process and science of engaging people with lived experience (PWLE) of mental health challenges and other psychiatric conditions, and family members, in research activities.ObjectiveThis scoping review of reviews synthesizes literature reviews on the engagement of PWLE and family members in research across the field of psychiatry.MethodSystematic searches were conducted in seven bibliographic databases. Records were independently screened first at the title and abstract level, then at the full‐text level. Included were any literature synthesis studies published in English, French, or Spanish in any given year, focusing on the engagement of PWLE and/or family members in research within psychiatry. Twenty records were included. Data were extracted in a spreadsheet and codebook thematic analysis was used across the body of articles to synthesize the findings.ResultsAspects of PWLE engagement have been synthesized in 20 review articles reviewing 376 articles across psychiatry as a whole and several subpopulations, including youth mental health, dementia, neurodevelopmental disorders, people who use drugs, and forensic mental health. Information specific to family engagement is lacking. Barriers, facilitators, and positive impacts of PWLE engagement have been widely reported across domains of research, with a considerable degree of consensus across subpopulations. Some negative impacts and reporting challenges have also been identified.DiscussionThis scoping review of reviews provides an overarching understanding of the current state of the science of PWLE and family engagement across psychiatry research. The findings can inform future research practices enriched with a genuine and effective engagement with PWLE and families.Patient or Public ContributionThe authorship team includes members with intersecting lived experience and academic identities. Additional lived experience engagement was not conducted as part of this review.

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…We conducted an overview of reviews using the scoping review methodology given the breadth and nature of the research, using established scoping review processes 18,19 . We chose the scoping review methodology to map the literature on engagement 20 .…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Lived experience and family engagement in psychiatry research: A scoping review of reviews

Hawke,

Sheikhan,

Rodak

2024

Health Expectations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Overview of reviews: A type of evidence synthesis that aims to search, collect, and integrate information on a topic from systematic reviews, using explicit and reproducible methods. 11 Critical flaw: a critical flaw exists when a critical item is rated as "No. "…”

Section: Box 1 Terminologymentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic reviews (SRs) aim to bring together evidence from primary studies that fulfill pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question (e.g., the efficacy and safety of interventions). 1 The publication rate of SRs in healthcare increased rapidly in the previous decade (11,22, 80 reviews per day in 2010, 2014, 2019 respectively) [2][3][4] and their yearly production is constantly growing. Given their important contribution to the healthcare decision-making practice, methodological quality of SRs is of major concern; if a SR lacks rigorous methodology, the reliability and validity of the results can be compromised.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

amstar2Vis: An R package for presenting the critical appraisal of systematic reviews based on the items of AMSTAR 2

Bougioukas,

Karakasis,

Pamporis

et al. 2024

Research Synthesis Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews (SRs) have an important role in the healthcare decision‐making practice. Assessing the overall confidence in the results of SRs using quality assessment tools, such as “A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews 2” (AMSTAR 2), is crucial since not all SRs are conducted using the most rigorous methods. In this article, we introduce a free, open‐source R package called “amstar2Vis” (https://github.com/bougioukas/amstar2Vis) that provides easy‐to‐use functions for presenting the critical appraisal of SRs, based on the items of AMSTAR 2 checklist. An illustrative example is outlined, describing the steps involved in creating a detailed table with the item ratings and the overall confidence ratings, generating a stacked bar plot that shows the distribution of ratings as percentages of SRs for each AMSTAR 2 item, and creating a “ggplot2” graph that shows the distribution of overall confidence ratings (“Critically Low,” “Low,” “Moderate,” or “High”). We expect “amstar2Vis” to be useful for overview authors and methodologists who assess the quality of SRs with AMSTAR 2 checklist and facilitate the production of pertinent publication‐ready tables and figures. Future research and applications could further investigate the functionality or potential improvements of our package.

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, Sutton et al ( 9 ) found ‘frequent inconsistencies or overlaps between the descriptions of nominally different review types’. Bougioukas et al ( 10 ) recently categorized overviews of reviews in health care into seven types based on methodological approach. Although the classification by Bougioukas et al is on overviews of reviews, it has great value for us to classify a broader range of reviews.…”

Section: Issues In the Misclassification Of Review Typesmentioning

confidence: 99%

How to make a systematic review live up to its name: perspectives from journal editors

Shang¹,

Ye²,

Yang³

et al. 2023

Ann Transl Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Types and associated methodologies of overviews of reviews in health care: a methodological study with published examples

Cited by 8 publications

References 100 publications

Lived experience and family engagement in psychiatry research: A scoping review of reviews

Lived experience and family engagement in psychiatry research: A scoping review of reviews

amstar2Vis: An R package for presenting the critical appraisal of systematic reviews based on the items of AMSTAR 2

How to make a systematic review live up to its name: perspectives from journal editors

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About