Table 6 Methods and approaches for addressing common scenarios unique to overviews
Scenario for which authors need to plan | Methods/approaches proposed in the literaturea | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Assessment of RoB in SRs and primary studies (Table 3) | Synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings (Table 4) | Assessment of certainty of the evidence (Table 5) | ||
1 | Reviews include overlapping information and data (e.g. arising from inclusion of the same primary studies) | 2.1.1 | 1.1.2, 5.0 | 1.1.1–1.1.5 |
2 | Reviews report discrepant information and data | 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.1.3 | 2.2.1, 2.2.5 | 1.1.1–1.1.5 |
3 | Data are missing or reviews report varying information (e.g. information on risk of bias is missing or varies across primary studies because reviews use different tools) | 2.1.1, 2.1.3 | 1.2.9, 2.2.1, 2.2.5 | 1.1.1–1.1.5 |
4 | Reviews provide incomplete coverage of the overview question (e.g. missing comparisons, populations) | 2.2.1, 2.2.4 | 1.1.1, 1.1.2, 1.1.5 | |
5 | Reviews are not up-to-date | 2.2.2 | 1.1.1, 1.1.2 | |
6 | Review methods raise concerns about bias or quality | 2.1.1, 2.1.2, 2.2.3 | 2.2.3, 2.2.5, 4.0 | 1.1.1–1.1.5 |
7 | Reviews report discordant results and conclusions | 2.2.7, 6.0 | 1.1.1–1.1.5 | |