Assumptions for creating matrices of evidence to estimate overlap of primary studies in overviews of reviews: Protocol for a meta-research study
Bracchiglione, J.; Meza, N.; Lunny, C.; Pieper, D.; Madrid, E.; Urrutia, G.; Bonfill Cosp, X.
Show abstract
IntroductionOverlap of primary studies among systematic reviews (SRs) included in an overview is a major challenge, as it may bias results or artificially increase the precision of the synthesis. Matrices of evidence and corrected covered area (CCA) calculation are recommended methods to manage overlap, but there is little guidance on how to construct these matrices. This research aims to explore variations in the estimation of overlap using CCA matrices under different assumptions. MethodsWe will include overviews published in 2023. We will describe the methods used by authors to deal with overlap, and we will calculate a summary CCA (a CCA for the whole matrix of evidence) and a pairwise CCA (a CCA for each possible pair of included SRs), comparing the results under different assumptions that may modify the evidence matrix and thus the CCA. These assumptions include: publication-thread adjustments (i.e. the consideration of each set of references regarding a single primary study as a unique row in a matrix of evidence), scope adjustments (i.e. the consideration only of the SRs and primary studies providing useful data for a given outcome within an overview) and chronological structural missingness adjustments (i.e. the exclusion of primary studies published after a given SR for purposes of CCA calculation). We will assess overlap at an overview and outcome level. DiscussionWe propose clear definitions for the key assumptions for creating matrices of evidence. We expect to provide a guide for overview authors to better interpret their CCA estimations. Article SummaryO_ST_ABSStrengths and limitations of this studyC_ST_ABSO_LIThis protocol explores the assumptions underlying the overlap assessment in overviews of systematic reviews, that so far have not been explicitly addressed. C_LIO_LIThese assumptions include scope adjustments, publication-thread adjustments, structural missingness adjustments, and analysis at an overview or outcome level. C_LIO_LIWe provide clear definitions for key overlap concepts that will guide authors for making their overlap assessments more explicit when using a matrix of evidence or corrected covered area approach. C_LIO_LIWe plan to conduct exploratory analyses under different assumptions in a purposive sample of overview, hence, we will not comprehensively include all the overviews in the study period. C_LIO_LIWe will conduct all the analysis calculating the corrected covered area for the whole matrices (overall approach) and for every possible pair of systematic reviews within each matrix (pairwise approach). C_LI
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 97%
- Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision-making: to what extent could the evidence be reliable? 96%
- Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: a scoping review 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 97%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 97%
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 96%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 95%
- Application of observational research methods to real-world studies for rare disease drugs: a scoping review protocol 93%
- A method of back-calculating the log odds ratio and standard error of the log odds ratio from the reported group-level risk of disease 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Strategies used to manage overlap of primary study data by exercise-related overviews. Protocol for a systematic methodological review 97%
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 96%
- Agreeability testing of AMSTAR-PF, a tool for quality appraisal of systematic reviews of prognostic factor studies 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a nested randomised control trial 96%
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis 95%
- Investigator-initiated versus industry-sponsored trials – Visibility and relevance of randomized controlled trials in clinical practice guidelines (IMPACT) 94%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.