Table 1.
Considerations when there are multiple SRs on the same topic
| Item | Responses | ALL | Policymaker | Practitioner | Researcher |
| Q6. How often have you faced a situation where you find more than one SR on a given topic of interest to you? | Never | (n=538) | (n=62) | (n=167) | (n=266) |
| 12 (2.2%) | 0 (0%) | 4 (2.3%) | 5 (1.9%) | ||
| Sometimes | 295 (54.8%) | 30 (48.3%) | 106 (63.4%) | 123 (46.2%) | |
| Often | 232 (43.1%) | 31 (50.0%) | 57 (34.1%) | 138 (51.9%) | |
| Q8. When you encounter multiple SRs on the same topic how do you choose the one(s) most likely to address your clinical/public health/policy question or your learning needs? | I typically choose the first one I find that is relevant to my topic | (n=552) | (n=62) | (n=170) | (n=266) |
| 13 (2.4%) | 1 (1.6%) | 2 (1.1%) | 4 (1.5%) | ||
| I find as many as I can that are relevant to my topic and then review them all | 207 (37.5%) | 34 (54.8%) | 45 (26.4%) | 111 (41.7%) | |
| I typically choose the most recently published one(s) that are relevant to my topic | 171 (31.0%) | 7 (11.2%) | 75 (44.1%) | 60 (22.6%) | |
| I typically choose the one from the highest impact factor journal | 34 (6.2%) | 1 (1.6%) | 18 (10.6%) | 10 (3.8%) | |
| Q9. When you have encountered multiple SRs on the same topic, which of the following statements resonates most with you? | I can usually identify the SR(s) best suited to my needs | (n=548) | (n=62) | (n=170) | (n=264) |
| 268 (48.9%) | 35 (56.4%) | 56 (32.9%) | 152 (57.6%) | ||
| I sometimes struggle to identify the SR(s) that are best suited to my needs | 238 (43.4%) | 24 (38.7%) | 94 (55.2%) | 101 (38.2%) | |
| I often struggle to identify the SR(s) best suited to my needs | 41 (7.4%) | 3 (4.8%) | 19 (11.1%) | 10 (3.8%) | |
| Q10. If/when you struggle to choose the SR(s) best suited to your needs, the barriers to you being able to make this decision are | Insufficient data from titles and abstracts to assess relevance to my question | (n=505) | (n=60) | (n=165) | (n=251) |
| 180 (35.6%) | 21 (35.0%) | 55 (33.3%) | 77 (30.7%) | ||
| Inexperience with assessing the methodological quality of (or biases in) SRs | 140 (27.7%) | 9 (15%) | 72 (43.6%) | 30 (12.0%) | |
| Not enough time to read each SR in full to evaluate all the options | 279 (55.2%) | 23 (38.3%) | 110 (66.7%) | 119 (47.4%) | |
| You don't trust the conclusions | 56 (11.0%) | 11 (18.3%) | 21 (12.7%) | 34 (13.5%) | |
| Different results and conclusions across the SRs | 251 (49.7%) | 28 (46.7%) | 94 (57.0%) | 130 (51.8%) | |
| Variation in the quality of how the SRs were conducted | 274 (54.2%) | 34 (56.7%) | 79 (47.9%) | 146 (58.1%) | |
| Variation in searches across the SRs | 172 (34.0%) | 23 (38.3%) | 46 (27.9%) | 95 (37.8%) | |
| Variation in included primary studies across the SRs | 225 (44.6%) | 30 (50.0%) | 63 (38.1%) | 120 (47.8%) | |
| Variation in how across the SRs results were synthesised | 194 (38.4%) | 28 (46.7%) | 51 (30.9%) | 106 (42.2%) | |
| Slightly different clinical focus between SRs | 218 (43.1%) | 27 (45.0%) | 74 (44.8%) | 107 (42.6%) |
*Numbers do not add up to 100% because respondents may have chosen more than one response option, and the majority of respondents identified as more than one type of decision maker (eg, researcher and patient).
SRs, systematic reviews.