Academia and Clinic20 May 2008
    Author, Article, and Disclosure Information

    Systematic reviewers increasingly must decide whether and how to incorporate existing systematic reviews into complex systematic reviews that are commissioned to support clinical guideline development or for other health policy uses. To date, however, this issue has been largely unexamined. Reviewers seeking to incorporate existing reviews into new reviews face a set of important questions:

    Can this practice adhere to systematic review principles? Will it save time? When should it be avoided? Will it produce valid results and be acceptable to users? Drawing from their collective experience, the authors outline a series of steps that can help reviewers reach reasoned decisions about the incorporation of existing systematic reviews and enumerate potential hazards to consider in doing so. They highlight issues surrounding the main steps reviewers must undertake, including locating existing reviews; assessing their relevance to the new review; assessing the quality of relevant reviews; determining how to incorporate high-quality, relevant existing systematic reviews; and clearly reporting the methods used and the results from this process. Further specification of methods, including the development of reporting standards for this approach, is needed.


    • 1. Oxman ADSchünemann HJFretheim AImproving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 16. Evaluation. Health Res Policy Syst2006;4:28. [PMID: 17156460] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 2. Bero LAJadad ARHow consumers and policymakers can use systematic reviews for decision making. Ann Intern Med1997;127:37-42. [PMID: 9214251] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 3. Muir Gray JAUsing systematic reviews for evidence based policy making.. In: Egger M., Smith GD, Altman D, eds. Systematic Reviews in Health Care: Meta-analysis in Context. 2nd ed. London: BMJ Publishing Group; 2001. Google Scholar
    • 4. Moher DTetzlaff JTricco ACSampson MAltman DGEpidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med2007;4:78. [PMID: 17388659] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 5. Silagy CAStead LFLancaster TUse of systematic reviews in clinical practice guidelines: case study of smoking cessation. BMJ2001;323:833-6. [PMID: 11597966] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 6. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Cochrane Manual Issue 2, 2008 [Updated 21 February 2008]. Oxford, UK: Cochrane Collaboration; 2008. Accessed at on 31 March 2008. Google Scholar
    • 7. Swann CFalce CMorgan AKelly MPowel GCarmona Cet alHDA Evidence Base Process and Quality Standards Manual for Evidence Briefings. 3rd ed. London: Health Development Agency; 2005. Google Scholar
    • 8. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network (SIGN). 2008. Accessed at on 31 March 2008. Google Scholar
    • 9. National Institute for Health and Clinical Excellence (NICE). 2008. Accessed at on 31 March 2008. Google Scholar
    • 10. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. 2008. Accessed at on 31 March 2008. Google Scholar
    • 11. NIHR Health Technology Assessment Programme. 2005. Accessed at on 31 March 2008. Google Scholar
    • 12. Burgers JSBailey JVKlazinga NSVan Der Bij AKGrol RFeder GAGREE CollaborationInside guidelines: comparative analysis of recommendations and evidence in diabetes guidelines from 13 countries. Diabetes Care2002;25:1933-9. [PMID: 12401735] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 13. van Tulder MWTuut MPennick VBombardier CAssendelft WJQuality of primary care guidelines for acute low back pain. Spine2004;29:357-62. [PMID: 15534397] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 14. Oxman ADGuyatt GHValidation of an index of the quality of review articles. J Clin Epidemiol1991;44:1271-8. [PMID: 1834807] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 15. Shea BJGrimshaw JMWells GABoers MAndersson NHamel Cet alDevelopment of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol2007;7:10. [PMID: 17302989] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 16. Moher DCook DJEastwood SOlkin IRennie DStroup DFImproving the quality of reports of meta-analyses of randomised controlled trials: the QUOROM statement. Quality of Reporting of Meta-analyses. Lancet1999;354:1896-900. [PMID: 10584742] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 17. Stroup DFBerlin JAMorton SCOlkin IWilliamson GDRennie Det alMeta-analysis of observational studies in epidemiology: a proposal for reporting. Meta-analysis Of Observational Studies in Epidemiology (MOOSE) group. JAMA2000;283:2008-12. [PMID: 10789670] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 18. Jadad ARCook DJJones AKlassen TPTugwell PMoher Met alMethodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA1998;280:278-80. [PMID: 9676681] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 19. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. USPSTF Procedure Manual. 2008. [Forthcoming]. Google Scholar
    • 20. Shekelle PGOrtiz ERhodes SMorton SCEccles MPGrimshaw JMet alValidity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated? JAMA2001;286:1461-7. [PMID: 11572738] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 21. Moher DTsertsvadze ATricco ACEccles MGrimshaw JSampson Met alA systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol2007;60:1095-1104. [PMID: 17938050] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 22. Shojania KGSampson MAnsari MTJi JDoucette SMoher DHow quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med2007;147:224-33. [PMID: 17638714] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 23. Panel on Antiretroviral Guidelines for Adults and Adolescents. Guidelines for the use of antiretroviral agents in HIV-1-infected adults and adolescents. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2008. Accessed at on 1 December 2008. Google Scholar
    • 24. Harris RPHelfand MWoolf SHLohr KNMulrow CDTeutsch SMet alMethods Work GroupThird US Preventive Services Task ForceCurrent methods of the US Preventive Services Task Force: a review of the process. Am J Prev Med2001;20:21-35. [PMID: 11306229] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 25. French SDMcDonald SMcKenzie JEGreen SEInvesting in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated? BMC Med Res Methodol2005;5:33. [PMID: 16225692] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 26. Eden KB, Orleans T, Mulrow CD, Pender NJ, Teutsch SM. Clinical counseling to promote physical activity. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. AHRQ Publication no. 02-S002. Google Scholar
    • 27. U.S. Preventive Services Task Force. Counseling to Prevent Tobacco Use and Tobacco-Caused Disease: Recommendations Statement. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2003. Accessed at on 3 April 2008. Google Scholar
    • 28. Lau J, Schmid CH, Chalmers TC. Cumulative meta-analysis of clinical trials builds evidence for exemplary medical care. J Clin Epidemiol. 1995;48:45-57; discussion 59-60. [PMID: 7853047] Google Scholar
    • 29. West S, King V, Carey TS, Lohr KN, McKoy N, Sutton SF, et al. Systems to Rate the Strength of Scientific Evidence. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2002. Evidence Report/Technology Assessment No. 47. AHRQ Publication no. 02-E016. Google Scholar
    • 30. Jadad ARMcQuay HJMeta-analyses to evaluate analgesic interventions: a systematic qualitative review of their methodology. J Clin Epidemiol1996;49:235-43. [PMID: 8606325] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 31. Assendelft WJKoes BWKnipschild PGBouter LMThe relationship between methodological quality and conclusions in reviews of spinal manipulation. JAMA1995;274:1942-8. [PMID: 8568990] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 32. Salerno SMBrowning RJackson JLThe effect of antidepressant treatment on chronic back pain: a meta-analysis. Arch Intern Med2002;162:19-24. [PMID: 11784215] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 33. Ward NGTricyclic antidepressants for chronic low-back pain. Mechanisms of action and predictors of response. Spine1986;11:661-5. [PMID: 2947334] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 34. Gøtzsche PCHróbjartsson AMaric KTendal BData extraction errors in meta-analyses that use standardized mean differences. JAMA2007;298:430-7. [PMID: 17652297] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 35. Jones APRemmington TWilliamson PRAshby DSmyth RLHigh prevalence but low impact of data extraction and reporting errors were found in Cochrane systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol2005;58:741-2. [PMID: 15939227] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 36. Chou RHuffman LHAmerican Pain SocietyAmerican College of PhysiciansNonpharmacologic therapies for acute and chronic low back pain: a review of the evidence for an American Pain Society/American College of Physicians clinical practice guideline. Ann Intern Med2007;147:492-504. [PMID: 17909210] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 37. Lorenz KALynn JDy SMShugarman LRWilkinson AMularski RAet alEvidence for improving palliative care at the end of life: a systematic review. Ann Intern Med2008;148:147-59. [PMID: 18195339] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 38. Furlan ADClarke JEsmail RSinclair SIrvin EBombardier CA critical review of reviews on the treatment of chronic low back pain. Spine2001;26:155-62. [PMID: 11295917] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 39. Jadad ARCook DJBrowman GPA guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. CMAJ1997;156:1411-6. [PMID: 9164400] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 40. Hopayian KMugford MConflicting conclusions from two systematic reviews of epidural steroid injections for sciatica: which evidence should general practitioners heed? Br J Gen Pract1999;49:57-61. [PMID: 10622020] MedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 41. Whitlock EP. Alcohol screening in primary care [Editorial]. BMJ. 2003;327:E263-4; discussion E265. [PMID: 14684659] Google Scholar
    • 42. Yank VRennie DBero LAFinancial ties and concordance between results and conclusions in meta-analyses: retrospective cohort study. BMJ2007;335:1202-5. [PMID: 18024482] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 43. Lexchin JBero LADjulbegovic BClark OPharmaceutical industry sponsorship and research outcome and quality: systematic review. BMJ2003;326:1167-70. [PMID: 12775614] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar
    • 44. Humphrey LLChan BKSox HCPostmenopausal hormone replacement therapy and the primary prevention of cardiovascular disease. Ann Intern Med2002;137:273-84. [PMID: 12186518] LinkGoogle Scholar
    • 45. Atkins DBest DBriss PAEccles MFalck-Ytter YFlottorp Set alGRADE Working GroupGrading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ2004;328:1490. [PMID: 15205295] CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar