Cookies on this website
We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. If you click 'Continue' we'll assume that you are happy to receive all cookies and you won't see this message again. Click 'Find out more' for information on how to change your cookie settings.

OBJECTIVES: To describe the use of systematic reviews or overviews (systematic reviews of systematic reviews) to synthesize quantitative evidence of intervention effects across multiple indications (multiple-indication reviews) and to highlight issues pertaining to such reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: MEDLINE was searched from 2003 to January 2014. We selected multiple-indication reviews of interventions of allopathic medicine that included evidence from randomized controlled trials. We categorized the subject areas evaluated by these reviews and examined their methodology. Utilities and caveats of multiple-indication reviews are illustrated with examples drawn from published literature. RESULTS: We retrieved 52 multiple-indication reviews covering a wide range of interventions. The method has been used to detect unintended effects, improve precision by pooling results across indications, and examine scientific hypotheses across disease classes. CONCLUSION: Systematic reviews of interventions are typically used to evaluate the effects of treatments, one indication at a time. Here, we argue that, with due attention to methodological caveats, much can be learned by comparing the effects of a given treatment across many related indications.

Original publication

DOI

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.08.007

Type

Journal article

Journal

J Clin Epidemiol

Publication Date

12/2014

Volume

67

Pages

1309 - 1319

Keywords

Assessing harms, Detecting unintended effects, Evaluating effectiveness, Multiple-indication reviews, Overviews, Panoramic meta-analyses, Research methods, Humans, Publication Bias, Randomized Controlled Trials as Topic, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Terminology as Topic, Treatment Outcome