Overviews of Reviews: Concept and Development

  1. José Antonio López-López 1
  2. María Rubio-Aparicio 2
  3. Julio Sánchez-Meca 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Murcia
    info

    Universidad de Murcia

    Murcia, España

    ROR https://ror.org/03p3aeb86

  2. 2 Universitat d'Alacant
    info

    Universitat d'Alacant

    Alicante, España

    ROR https://ror.org/05t8bcz72

Revista:
Psicothema

ISSN: 0214-9915,  1886-144X

Año de publicación: 2022

Volumen: 34

Número: 2

Páginas: 175-181

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.7334/PSICOTHEMA2021.586 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: Psicothema

Resumen

Antecedentes: en los últimos años, las meta-revisiones, o revisiones paraguas, han incrementado exponencialmente su uso. Una meta-revisión proporciona un resumen de las revisiones incluidas y, a menudo, aborda preguntas más allá de las planteadas en las revisiones sistemáticas sintetizadas. El propósito de este artículo fue proporcionar recomendaciones sobre cómo deben hacerse y reportarse las meta-revisiones. Método: se llevó a cabo una revisión de la literatura para identificar artículos relevantes sobre meta-revisiones, tanto metodológicos como aplicados. Resultados: a día de hoy la literatura sobre meta-revisiones recomienda seguir los mismos pasos que en las revisiones sistemáticas: (a) definición de la pregunta de investigación; (b) criterios de inclusión y exclusión; (c) búsqueda de la literatura; (d) extracción de datos; (e) valoración del riesgo de sesgo y de la calidad del reporte; (f) presentación de resultados; y (g) reporte de la meta-revisión. De especial interés es cómo abordar los problemas de dependencia entre las revisiones sistemáticas sintetizadas. Conclusiones: las meta-revisiones permiten combinar evidencia de múltiples revisiones sistemáticas de una forma eficiente. Esto permite transformar y resumir grandes cantidades de información. Al igual que en los estudios primarios y las revisiones sistemáticas, las meta-revisiones deben realizarse y reportarse cumpliendo con estándares mínimos de calidad.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Andersson, G., Carlbring, P., Titov, N., & Lindefors, N. (2019). Internet interventions for adults with anxiety and mood disorders: A narrative umbrella review of recent meta-analyses. The Canadian Journal of Psychiatry, 64, 465-470. https://doi.org/10.1177/0706743719839381
  • Aromataris, E., Fernández, R., Godfrey, C., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom P. (2020). Umbrella Reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.), JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. The Joanna Briggs Institute. https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-11
  • Bastian, H., Glasziou, P., & Chalmers, I. (2010). Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up? PLoS Medicine, 7, e1000326. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000326
  • Biondi-Zoccai, G. (2016). Umbrella reviews: Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies. Springer International.
  • Catalán-Matamoros, D., Gómez-Conesa, A., Stubbs, B., & Vancampfort, D. (2016). Exercise improves depressive symptoms in older adults: An umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Psychiatry Research, 244, 202-209. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.psychres.2016.07.028
  • Cooper, H., Hedges, L. V., & Valentine, J. C. (2019). The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis. Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Corral, S., Herrero, M., Martín, N., Gordejuela, A., & Herrero-Fernández, D. (2021). Psychological adjustment in adult adoptees: A meta-analysis. Psicothema, 33, 527-535. https://doi:10.7334/psicothema2021.98
  • Cruzes, D. S., & Dybå, T. (2011). Research synthesis in software engineering: A tertiary study. Information and Software Technology, 53, 440-455. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.infsof.2011.01.004
  • Glass, G. V. (1976). Primary, secondary, and meta-analysis of research. Educational Researcher, 5(10), 3-8. https://doi.org/10.3102/0013189X005010003
  • Golder, S., & Wright, K. (2016). Searching evidence. In G. Biondi-Zoccai (Ed.), Umbrella reviews: Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies (pp. 95-106). Springer International.
  • Harbour, R., & Miller, J. (2001). A new system for grading recommendations in evidence based guidelines. British Medical Journal, 323, 334-336. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.323.7308.334
  • Hartling, L., Chisholm, A., Thomson, D., & Dryden, D. M. (2012). A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PloS One, 7, e49667. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal. pone.0049667
  • Hennessy, E. A., & Johnson, B. T. (2020). Examining overlap of included studies in meta-reviews: Guidance for using the corrected covered area index. Research Synthesis Methods, 11, 134-145. https://doi. org/10.1002/jrsm.1390
  • Higgins, J. P., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M. J., & Welch, V. A. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. John Wiley & Sons.
  • Inthout, J., Ioannidis, J. P. A., Borm, G., & Goeman, J. J. (2015). Small studies are more heterogeneous than large ones: A meta-metaanalysis. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 860-869. https://doi. org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.03.017
  • Ioannidis, J. (2017). Next-generation systematic reviews: Prospective metaanalysis, individual-level data, networks and umbrella reviews. British Journal of Sports Medicine, 51, 1456-1458. http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/ bjsports-2017-097621
  • Johnson, B. T., Scott-Sheldon, L. A., & Carey, M. P. (2010). Meta-synthesis of health behavior change meta-analyses. American Journal of Public Health, 100, 2193-2198. https://doi.org/10.2105/AJPH.2008.155200
  • Lakens, D, Hilgard, J., & Staaks, J. (2016). On the reproducibility of metaanalyses: Six practical recommendations. BMC Psychology, 4(1), 1-10. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-016-0126-3
  • Lecomte, T., Potvin, S., Corbière, M., Guay, S., Samson, C., Cloutier, B., Francoeur, A., Pennou, A., & Khazaal, Y. (2020). Mobile apps for mental health issues: Meta-review of meta-analyses. JMIR mHealth and uHealth, 8, e17458. https://doi.org/10.2196/17458
  • Littell, J. H. (2018). Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products. Campbell Systematic Reviews, 14, 1-21. http://doi.org/10.4073/cmdp.2018.1
  • López-López, J. A., Davies, S. R., Caldwell, D. M., Churchill, R., Peters, T. J., Tallon, D., Dawson, S., Wu, Q., Li, J., Taylor, A., Lewis, G., Kessler, D., Wiles, N., & Welton, N. J. (2019). The process and delivery of CBT for depression in adults: A systematic review and network meta-analysis. Psychological Medicine, 49, 1937-1947. http://doi.org/10.1017/S003329171900120X
  • López-López, J. A., Page, M. J., Lipsey, M. W., & Higgins, J. P. (2018). Dealing with effect size multiplicity in systematic reviews and metaanalyses. Research Synthesis Methods, 9, 336-351. http://dx.doi. org/10.1002/jrsm.1310
  • López-Nicolás, R., López-López, J. A., Rubio-Aparicio, M., & Sánchez-Meca, J. (2021). A meta-review of transparency and reproducibility-related reporting practices in published meta-analyses on clinical psychological interventions (2000-2020). Behavior Research Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-021-01644-z
  • Lunny, C., McKenzie, J. E., & McDonald, S. (2016). Retrieval of overviews of systematic reviews in MEDLINE was improved by the development of an objectively derived and validated search strategy. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 74, 107-118. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2015.12.002
  • Moreau, D., & Gamble, B. (2020). Conducting a meta-analysis in the age of open science: Tools, tips, and practical recommendations. Psychological Methods. Advance online publication. https://doi.org/10.1037/met0000351
  • Onishi, A., & Furukawa, T. A. (2014). Publication bias is underreported in systematic reviews published in high-impact-factor journals: Metaepidemiologic study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 1320- 1326. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.07.002
  • Page, M. J., Higgins, J. P., Clayton, G., Sterne, J. A., Hróbjartsson, A., & Savović, J. (2016). Empirical evidence of study design biases in randomized trials: Systematic review of meta-epidemiological studies. PloS One, 11, e0159267. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0159267
  • Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Aki, E. A., Brennan, S. E., Chou, R., Glanville, J., Grimshaw, J. M., Hróbjartsson, A., Lalu, M. M., Li, T., Loder, E. W., Mayo-Wilson, E., McDonald, S., …Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. British Medical Journal, 372, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
  • Papageorgiou, S., & Biondi-Zoccai, G. (2016). Designing the review. In G. Biondi-Zoccai (Ed.), Umbrella reviews: Evidence synthesis with overviews of reviews and meta-epidemiologic studies (pp. 57-80). Springer International.
  • Pieper, D., Antoine, S. L., Mathes, T., Neugebauer, E. A., & Eikermann, M. (2014). Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 67, 368-375. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.11.007
  • Pieper, D., Buechter, R., Jerinic, P., & Eikermann, M. (2012). Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: A systematic review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 65, 1267-1273. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. jclinepi.2012.06.015
  • Polanin, J. R., Tanner-Smith, E. E., & Hennessy, E. A. (2016). Estimating the difference between published and unpublished effect sizes: A metareview. Review of Educational Research, 86, 207-236. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654315582067
  • Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., Pieper, D., Tricco, A. C., Gates, M., Gates, A., & Hartling, L. (2019). Preferred Reporting Items for Overviews of Reviews (PRIOR): A protocol for development of a reporting guideline for overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions. Systematic Reviews, 8, 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-1252-9
  • Pollock, M., Fernandes, R. M., Becker, L. A., Pieper, D., & Hartling, L. (2021). Overviews of Reviews. In J. P. T. Higgins, J. Thomas, J. Chandler, M. Cumpston, T. Li, M. J. Page & Welch, V. A. (Eds.), Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
  • Rhodes, K. M., Turner, R. M., & Higgins, J. P. T. (2015). Predictive distributions were developed for the extent of heterogeneity in metaanalyses of continuous outcome data. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68, 52-60. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.012
  • Rubio-Aparicio, M., Marín-Martínez, F., Sánchez-Meca, J., & López-López, J. A. (2018). A methodological review of meta-analyses of the effectiveness of clinical psychology treatments. Behavior Research Methods, 50, 2057-2073. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-017-0973-8
  • Sala, G., Aksayli, N. D., Tatlidil, K. S., Tatsumi, T., Gondo, Y., & Gobet, F. (2019). Near and far transfer in cognitive training: A second-order meta-analysis. Collabra: Psychology, 5, 1-22. https://doi.org/10.1525/ collabra.203
  • Sánchez-Meca, J., Marín-Martínez, F., López-López, J. A., Núñez-Núñez, R. M., Rubio-Aparicio, M., López-García, J. J., López-Pina, J. A., Blázquez-Rincón, D., López-Ibáñez, C., & López-Nicolás, R. (2021). Improving the reporting quality of reliability generalization metaanalyses: The REGEMA checklist. Research Synthesis Methods, 12, 516-536. https://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1487
  • Schmidt, F. L., & Oh, I. S. (2013). Methods for second order metaanalysis and illustrative applications. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 121, 204-218. https://doi.org/10.1016/j. obhdp.2013.03.002
  • Schulz, K. F., Chalmers, I., Hayes, R. J., & Altman, D. G. (1995). Empirical evidence of bias: Dimensions of methodological quality associated with estimates of treatment effects in controlled trials. Journal of the American Medical Association, 273, 408-412. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.1995.03520290060030
  • Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., & Henry, D. A. (2017). AMSTAR 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. British Medical Journal, 358, 1-9. https://doi. org/10.1136/bmj.j4008
  • Smith, V., Devane, D., Begley, C. M., & Clarke, M. (2011). Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 11, 1-6. https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-11-15
  • Sterne, J. A., Jüni, P., Schulz, K. F., Altman, D. G., Bartlett, C., & Egger, M. (2002). Statistical methods for assessing the influence of study characteristics on treatment effects in ‘meta-epidemiological’research. Statistics in Medicine, 21, 1513-1524. https://doi.org/10.1002/sim.1184
  • Stroup, D. F., Berlin, J. A., Morton, S. C., Olkin, I., Williamson, G. D., Rennie, D., Moher, D., Becker, B. J., Sipe, T. A., & Thacker, S. B. (2000). Meta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: A proposal for reporting. Journal of the American Medical Association, 283, 2008-2012. https://doi.org/10.1001/jama.283.15.2008
  • Trinquart, L., Dechartres, A., & Ravaud, P. (2013). Commentary: Meta-epidemiology, meta-meta-epidemiology or network metaepidemiology? International Journal of Epidemiology, 42, 1131-1133. https://doi.org/10.1093/ije/dyt137
  • Tsujimoto, Y., Tsutsumi, Y., Kataoka, Y., Banno, M., & Furukawa, T. A. (2022). Around ten percent of most recent Cochrane reviews included outcomes in their literature search strategy and were associated with potentially exaggerated results: A research-on-research study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 141, 74-81. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2021.08.030
  • Valero-Aguayo, L., Rodríguez-Bocanegra, M., Ferro-García, R., & AscanioVelasco, L. (2021). Meta-analysis of the efficacy and effectiveness of parent child interaction therapy (PCIT) for child behaviour problems. Psicothema, 33, 544-555. https://doi:10.7334/psicothema2021.70
  • Vevea, J. L., Coburn, K., & Sutton, A. (2019). Publication bias. In H. Cooper, L. V. Hedges & J. C. Valentine (Eds.), The Handbook of Research Synthesis and Meta-analysis (pp. 383-429). Russell Sage Foundation.
  • Viechtbauer, W., & López-López, J. A. (2021). Location-Scale Models for Meta-Analysis [Manuscript submitted for publication].
  • Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Caldwell, D. M., Reeves, B. C., Shea, B., Davies, P., Kleijnen, J., Churchill, R., & ROBIS group (2016). ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 69, 225-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet