Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs

BackgroundAn exponential increase in the number of systematic reviews published, and constrained resources for new reviews, means that there is an urgent need for guidance on explicitly and transparently integrating existing reviews into new systematic reviews. The objectives of this paper are: 1) to identify areas where existing guidance may be adopted or adapted, and 2) to suggest areas for future guidance development.MethodsWe searched documents and websites from healthcare focused systematic review organizations to identify and, where available, to summarize relevant guidance on the use of existing systematic reviews. We conducted informational interviews with members of Evidence-based Practice Centers (EPCs) to gather experiences in integrating existing systematic reviews, including common issues and challenges, as well as potential solutions.ResultsThere was consensus among systematic review organizations and the EPCs about some aspects of incorporating existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Current guidance may be used in assessing the relevance of prior reviews and in scanning references of prior reviews to identify studies for a new review. However, areas of challenge remain. Areas in need of guidance include how to synthesize, grade the strength of, and present bodies of evidence composed of primary studies and existing systematic reviews. For instance, empiric evidence is needed regarding how to quality check data abstraction and when and how to use study-level risk of bias assessments from prior reviews.ConclusionsThere remain areas of uncertainty for how to integrate existing systematic reviews into new reviews. Methods research and consensus processes among systematic review organizations are needed to develop guidance to address these challenges.

[1]  Aneesa Motala,et al.  Reporting the Findings of Updated Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness: How Do Users Want To View New Information? , 2013 .

[2]  Howard Balshem,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[3]  J. Sterne,et al.  The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials , 2011, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[4]  The Science and Art of Deduction: Complex Systematic Overviews , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[5]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  A D Oxman,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Checklists for review articles , 1994, BMJ.

[7]  Jennifer S. Lin,et al.  Using Existing Systematic Reviews in Complex Systematic Reviews , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[8]  E. Tacconelli Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care , 2010 .

[9]  A. Dhar,et al.  National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence , 2005 .

[10]  N Mittmann,et al.  Economic guidelines for oncology products: Adaptation of the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) technology assessment guidance document. , 2009, Journal of clinical oncology : official journal of the American Society of Clinical Oncology.

[11]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[12]  Michele Tarsilla Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[13]  Claudia Wild,et al.  BEST PRACTICE IN UNDERTAKING AND REPORTING HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS , 2002, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[14]  Laura A. Levit,et al.  Finding what works in health care : standards for systematic reviews , 2011 .