Methods/approaches proposed in the literaturea | |||
---|---|---|---|
Scenario for which authors need to plan | Eligibility criteria (Table 4) | Data extraction (Table 6) | |
1 | Reviews include overlapping information and data (e.g. arising from inclusion of the same primary studies) | 1.4.2 1.5 (1.5.1–1.5.4) | 1.2 2.2 (2.2.1, 2.2.2) |
2 | Reviews report discrepant information and dataa | 1.4.2 1.6.2, 1.6.3 | 2.3 (2.3.1–2.3.4) 2.2.1, 2.2.2 2.4 (2.4.1–2.4.5) |
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) | 1.6.2, 1.6.3 | 2.4 (2.4.1–2.4.5) |
4 | Reviews provide incomplete coverage of the overview question (e.g. missing comparisons, populations) | 1.6.2, 1.6.3 | 1.2 2.1.2, 2.1.4 2.4 |
5 | Reviews are not up-to-date | 1.4.2 1.6.2, 1.6.3 | 2.1.2, 2.1.4 |
6 | Review methods raise concerns about bias or quality | 1.4.2 1.6.2, 1.6.3 | 1.2 |