Print Message

Sarah,

There would be value in your current team analyzing the previous reviews that have been done on the topic, or looking more closely at the included studies of those previous reviews....but this might not be what they want to do.

I'm working on a somewhat analagous project in which we are updating an influential meta-analysis. Turns out the original meta-analysis skipped ROB & quality assessment of included studies. So, in addition to updating the m-a (including quality assessment), we are also doing a second project looking more closely at all the included studies for from the original m-a and the updated m-a. This is because, in this case, this team is very keen on calling for improved methods in the field of study. And some of the included studies from that influential meta-analysis are looking rather questionable!

Jane

Hi everyone,

 

I'm wondering if anyone has experience with working on a topic that has been reviewed many different times already. As we are doing our test searches, we're finding many related so-called systematic reviews and are wondering if doing yet another will just be duplicative. We would likely take a slightly different angle from anything we're finding, but I worry that this is already an over-reviewed topic. That said, the search in almost every review we've seen has been poor to very poor.

 

I've suggested an umbrella review, but am not sure that's the route the team wants to take. I'm also thinking a systematic map might be a good approach. Does anyone have experience with umbrella reviews to share? Or a similar issue with finding a niche in a heavily reviewed field?

 

Thanks!

 

Sarah