ReviewSao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina
Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part II.
Review in Sao Paulo medical journal = Revista paulista de medicina. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 14 papers, 5 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
14 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A systematic overview of systematic reviews evaluating medication adherence interventions.American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists · 2020Pooled it
- Rapid Tranquilization for Psychiatric Patients with Psychomotor Agitation: What is Known About it?The Psychiatric quarterly · 2017Pooled it
- Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 1-purpose, eligibility, search and data extraction.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19 in people with diabetes: A systematic review.Enfermeria clinicaPooled it
- [Quality of systematic reviews of COVID-19 in people with diabetes: A systematic review].Enfermeria clinicaPooled it
- Efficacy and Safety of Biologic Therapies for Uncontrolled Asthma: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.Pediatric pulmonology · 2026Review
- Effect of Low- and High-Level Laser Therapy on the Treatment of Dentin Hypersensitivity: An Umbrella Review.Journal of lasers in medical sciences · 2024Review
- An Overview of the Systematic Evidence on the Adjunctive Use of Laser Therapy in Non-surgical Periodontal Treatment.Cureus · 2023Review
- Effect of premedication on the success of inferior alveolar nerve block in patients diagnosed with irreversible pulpitis: An umbrella review.Dental research journal · 2023Review
- Prevalence of Proximal Contact Loss between Implant-Supported Prostheses and Adjacent Natural Teeth: An Umbrella Review.European journal of dentistry · 2022Article
- An Umbrella Review of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Evaluating the Success Rate of Prosthetic Restorations on Endodontically Treated Teeth.International journal of dentistry · 2022Review
- Medical and Surgical Treatment of Reproductive Outcomes in Polycystic Ovary Syndrome: An Overview of Systematic Reviews.International journal of fertility & sterility · 2020Review
- Toward a comprehensive evidence map of overview of systematic review methods: paper 2-risk of bias assessment; synthesis, presentation and summary of the findings; and assessment of the certainty of the evidence.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
CONTEXT AND
objectiveOverviews of Systematic Reviews (OoRs) are a new type of study in which multiple evidence from systematic reviews (SRs) is compiled into an accessible and useful document. The aim here was to describe the state of the art and critically assess Cochrane OoRs that have been published. DESIGN AND
settingDescriptive study conducted at a research center.
methodsThe OoRs identified through the filter developed in Part I of this study were evaluated in five domains: methodological quality; quality of evidence; implications for practice; general profile of OoRs; and length of work.
resultsAll 13 OoRs included had high methodological quality. Some OoRs did not present sufficient data to judge the quality of evidence; using sensitivity analysis, the quality of evidence of the OoRs increased. Regarding implications for practice, 64% of the interventions were judged as beneficial or harmful, while 36% of them showed insufficient evidence for judgment. It is expected (with 95% confidence interval) that one OoR will include 9,462 to 64,469 patients, 9 to 29 systematic reviews and 80 to 344 primary studies, and assess 6 to 21 interventions; and that 50 to 92% of OoRs will produce meta-analysis. The OoRs generated 2 to 26 meta-analyses over a period of 18 to 31 months.
conclusionThe OoRs presented high methodological quality; the quality of evidence tended to be moderate/high; most interventions were judged to be beneficial/harmful; the mean length of work was 24 months. The OoR profile adds power to decision-making.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.