Search Database

KT Strategies - Search Results

You searched for records matching:

1. Citation: Robinson, K. A., Whitlock, E. P., Oneil, M. E., Anderson, J. K., Hartling, L., Dryden, D. M., Butler, M., Newberry, S. J., McPheeters, M., Berkman, N. D., Lin, J. S., Chang, S. (2014). Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: Identification of guidance needs. Systematic Reviews, 3,60. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-60.
Title: Integration of existing systematic reviews into new reviews: identification of guidance needs
Author(s): Robinson, K. A.
Whitlock, E. P.
Oneil, M.E.
Anderson, J. K.
Hartling, L.
Dryden, D. M.
Butler, M.
Newberry, S. J.
McPheeters, M.
Berkman, N. D.
Lin, J. S.
Chang, S.
Year: 2014
Journal/Publication: Systematic Reviews
Abstract:

Background

An 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.

Copyright © (2014) Robinson, K. A. et al. Abstract reprinted by AIR in compliance with the BioMed Central Open Access Charter at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/policies/license-agreement.

Methods

We 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.

Results

There 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.

Conclusions

There 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.

Keywords:

systematic review methods; evidence-based practice centers; using existing reviews

Copyright © (2014) Robinson, K. A. et al. Abstract reprinted by AIR in compliance with the BioMed Central Open Access Charter at http://www.biomedcentral.com/about/policies/license-agreement.

WEB URI:

http://www.systematicreviewsjournal.com/content/3/1/60

Type of Item: Evaluation Instrument
Type of KT Strategy: Systematic Review Synthesis/Framework
Target Group: Research Funders
Researchers
Evidence Level: 2
Record Updated:2015-01-14
 

Home or Search again

American Institutes for Research (AIR) logo
About AIR | AIR Topics | Contact AIR
Center on Knowledge Translation for Disability and Rehabilitation Research (KTDRR)
© 2019 American Institutes for Research (AIR).

The contents of this site were developed under grant number 90DPKT0001 from the National Institute on Disability, Independent Living, and Rehabilitation Research (NIDILRR). NIDILRR is a Center within the Administration for Community Living (ACL), Department of Health and Human Services (HHS). The contents of this website do not necessarily represent the policy of NIDILRR, ACL, HHS, and you should not assume endorsement by the Federal Government.


the National Institute on Disability Independent Living and Rehabilitation Research logo