Overlapping Systematic Reviews on the Same Topic: A Systematic Literature Review of Quantitative Research

IF 2.1 4区医学 Q3 HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice Pub Date : 2025-06-10 DOI:10.1111/jep.70148

Shunlong Ou, Jing Luo, Qian Jiang

{"title":"Overlapping Systematic Reviews on the Same Topic: A Systematic Literature Review of Quantitative Research","authors":"Shunlong Ou, Jing Luo, Qian Jiang","doi":"10.1111/jep.70148","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div>\n \n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Objective</h3>\n \n <p>The number of published systematic reviews has exploded in the past three decades, followed by a large number of overlapping systematic reviews on the same topic. We aim to review the frequency and causes of overlap in systematic reviews.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Methods</h3>\n \n <p>Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched PubMed and Embase from inception to March 4, 2024, to identify English-language studies quantitatively assessing overlapping systematic reviews on the same topic. Nonempirical studies and duplicates were excluded. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data, with results analyzed descriptively.</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Results</h3>\n \n <p>Eleven quantitative studies were included in this study. Findings revealed that 68% of systematic reviews exhibited overlap, with a maximum of 76 overlapping reviews identified on a single topic. Only 36% overlapping systematic reviews referenced previous studies and a mere of 9% reported protocol registrations. The most mentioned causes for overlap were the omission to reference previous systematic reviews (6; 55%), lack of protocol registration (3; 27%), performance-driven incentives among researchers (3; 27%). Key recommendations to mitigate overlap included mandatory protocol registration (7; 64%), explaining the novelty and innovation of research (5; 45%), strengthening the review of overlap (3; 27%).</p>\n </section>\n \n <section>\n \n <h3> Conclusion</h3>\n \n <p>Overlapping systematic reviews undermine evidence reliability due to transparency gaps and methodological weaknesses. Mandatory protocol registration, interdisciplinary collaboration, and adherence to tools like AMSTAR 2 are critical to curb redundancy. Journals must enforce rigorous quality checks and support living reviews. Stakeholders urgently need to standardize definitions of overlap, establish update frameworks, and promote ethical research practices. Addressing these challenges will enhance the efficiency and trustworthiness of evidence synthesis in healthcare.</p>\n </section>\n </div>","PeriodicalId":15997,"journal":{"name":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","volume":"31 4","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":2.1000,"publicationDate":"2025-06-10","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of evaluation in clinical practice","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jep.70148","RegionNum":4,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q3","JCRName":"HEALTH CARE SCIENCES & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}

引用次数: 0

Abstract

Objective

The number of published systematic reviews has exploded in the past three decades, followed by a large number of overlapping systematic reviews on the same topic. We aim to review the frequency and causes of overlap in systematic reviews.

Methods

Following PRISMA 2020 guidelines, we searched PubMed and Embase from inception to March 4, 2024, to identify English-language studies quantitatively assessing overlapping systematic reviews on the same topic. Nonempirical studies and duplicates were excluded. Two researchers independently screened and extracted data, with results analyzed descriptively.

Results

Eleven quantitative studies were included in this study. Findings revealed that 68% of systematic reviews exhibited overlap, with a maximum of 76 overlapping reviews identified on a single topic. Only 36% overlapping systematic reviews referenced previous studies and a mere of 9% reported protocol registrations. The most mentioned causes for overlap were the omission to reference previous systematic reviews (6; 55%), lack of protocol registration (3; 27%), performance-driven incentives among researchers (3; 27%). Key recommendations to mitigate overlap included mandatory protocol registration (7; 64%), explaining the novelty and innovation of research (5; 45%), strengthening the review of overlap (3; 27%).

Conclusion

Overlapping systematic reviews undermine evidence reliability due to transparency gaps and methodological weaknesses. Mandatory protocol registration, interdisciplinary collaboration, and adherence to tools like AMSTAR 2 are critical to curb redundancy. Journals must enforce rigorous quality checks and support living reviews. Stakeholders urgently need to standardize definitions of overlap, establish update frameworks, and promote ethical research practices. Addressing these challenges will enhance the efficiency and trustworthiness of evidence synthesis in healthcare.

查看原文本刊更多论文

同一主题的重叠系统综述：定量研究的系统文献综述

目的在过去的三十年中，发表的系统综述数量呈爆炸式增长，随之而来的是同一主题的大量重叠系统综述。我们的目标是回顾系统评价中重叠的频率和原因。方法根据PRISMA 2020指南，我们检索了PubMed和Embase从建立到2024年3月4日，以确定定量评估同一主题重叠系统评价的英语研究。排除非实证研究和重复研究。两名研究人员独立筛选和提取数据，并对结果进行描述性分析。结果本研究共纳入11项定量研究。研究结果显示，68%的系统综述存在重叠，在单个主题上确定的最多76个重叠综述。只有36%的重叠系统评价引用了以前的研究，只有9%的报告了方案注册。被提及最多的重叠原因是没有参考以前的系统综述(6；55%)，缺乏协议注册(3；27%)，研究人员的绩效激励(3%；27%)。减少重叠的主要建议包括强制性协议注册(7；64%)，解释研究的新颖性和创新性(5%；45%)，加强重叠审查(3；27%)。结论由于透明度差距和方法学上的缺陷，重叠的系统评价降低了证据的可靠性。强制协议注册、跨学科协作以及遵守AMSTAR 2等工具是遏制冗余的关键。期刊必须执行严格的质量检查并支持实时评论。利益相关者迫切需要标准化重叠的定义，建立更新的框架，并促进伦理研究实践。解决这些挑战将提高医疗保健证据合成的效率和可信度。

本文章由计算机程序翻译，如有差异，请以英文原文为准。

求助全文

约1分钟内获得全文求助全文

来源期刊

Journal of evaluation in clinical practice 医学-卫生保健

CiteScore

4.80

自引率

4.20%

发文量

143

审稿时长

3-8 weeks

期刊介绍： The Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice aims to promote the evaluation and development of clinical practice across medicine, nursing and the allied health professions. All aspects of health services research and public health policy analysis and debate are of interest to the Journal whether studied from a population-based or individual patient-centred perspective. Of particular interest to the Journal are submissions on all aspects of clinical effectiveness and efficiency including evidence-based medicine, clinical practice guidelines, clinical decision making, clinical services organisation, implementation and delivery, health economic evaluation, health process and outcome measurement and new or improved methods (conceptual and statistical) for systematic inquiry into clinical practice. Papers may take a classical quantitative or qualitative approach to investigation (or may utilise both techniques) or may take the form of learned essays, structured/systematic reviews and critiques.