Background: Overviews often identify and synthesise a large number of systematic reviews on the same topic, which is likely to lead to overlap (i.e. duplication) in primary studies across the reviews. Using a primary study result multiple times in the same analysis overstates its sample size and number of events, falsely leading to greater precision in the analysis. This paper aims to: (a) describe types of overlapping data that arise from the same primary studies reported across multiple reviews, (b) describe methods to identify and explain overlap of primary study data, and (c) present six case studies illustrating different approaches to manage overlap. Methods: We first updated the search in PubMed for methods from the MOoR framework relating to overlap of primary studies. One author screened the studies titles and abstracts, and any full-text articles retrieved, extracted methods data relating to overlap of primary studies and mapped it to the overlap methods from the MOoR framework. We also describe six case studies as examples of overviews that use specific overlap methods across the steps in the conduct of an overview. For each case study, we discuss potential methodological implications in terms of limitations, efficiency, usability, and resource use. Results: Nine methods studies were found and mapped to the methods identified by the MOoR framework to address overlap. Overlap methods were mapped across four steps in the conduct of an overview – the eligibility criteria step, the data extraction step, the assessment of risk of bias step, and the synthesis step. Our overview case studies used multiple methods to reduce overlap at different steps in the conduct of an overview. Conclusions: Our study underlines that there is currently no standard methodological approach to deal with overlap in primary studies across reviews. The level of complexity when dealing with overlap can vary depending on the yield, trends and patterns of the included literature and the scope of the overview question. Choosing a method might be dependent on the number of included reviews and their primary studies. Gaps in evaluation of methods to address overlap were found and further investigation in this area is needed.

Background: Neuromuscular blockade (NMB) is frequently used in moderate-to-severe acute respiratory distress syndrome (ARDS) to optimize ventilatory synchrony and minimize ventilator-induced lung injury. However, comparative real-world data on different NMB strategies remain limited. Objective: To describe patterns of neuromuscular blockade use in ARDS and describe clinical outcomes across four NMB strategies: intermittent rocuronium, continuous cisatracurium, escalation from rocuronium to cisatracurium, and de-escalation from cisatracurium to rocuronium. Methods: A retrospective chart review was conducted in an 18-bed tertiary ICU at Hôpital Montfort (Ottawa, Canada) between November 2021 and March 2025. Adult ARDS patients who received NMB for >24 h were included. Continuous variables (age, ventilation time, ICU stay) were summarized as means ± SD and median [IQR]; categorical variables (sex, ARDS etiology, mortality) as counts and percentages. Inferential testing was limited to baseline characteristics; clinical outcomes were summarized descriptively. Results: Fifty-one patients met inclusion criteria: rocuronium (n = 20), cisatracurium (n = 14), rocuronium→cisatracurium (n = 8), and cisatracurium→rocuronium (n = 9). Mean ventilation durations were 280, 195, 272, and 262 h, respectively; corresponding ICU stays were 245, 237, 380, and 299 h. Mortality ranged from 25% to 56%. Escalation from rocuronium to cisatracurium typically reflected persistent dyssynchrony or worsening oxygenation, whereas de-escalation occurred in improving patients with residual ventilatory drive. Variability in corticosteroid use, adjunctive proning, and epoprostenol were potential confounders. Conclusions: Distinct NMB use patterns in ARDS reflect bedside clinical judgment rather than predefined thresholds. Patient trajectory and dyssynchrony severity appear to drive NMBA escalation decisions more than oxygenation indices alone. These findings highlight the need for prospective studies defining standardized criteria for NMB initiation, escalation, and weaning in ARDS.

Background: Achieving and maintaining therapeutic anticoagulation with unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients is challenging due to biologic variability, heparin resistance, and limitations of activated partial thromboplastin time (aPTT) monitoring. Argatroban, a direct thrombin inhibitor, provides antithrombin-independent anticoagulation with more predictable pharmacokinetics, but real-world data describing its anticoagulation stability in the intensive care unit (ICU) remain limited. Objective: This study aimed to compare anticoagulation stability between continuous intravenous argatroban and unfractionated heparin in critically ill patients using time in therapeutic range (TTR) based on aPTT as the primary performance metric. Methods: A retrospective cohort study was conducted in the ICU and step-down unit of Hôpital Montfort (Ottawa, ON, Canada) between January 2016 and December 2024. Adult patients receiving continuous intravenous argatroban or unfractionated heparin for systemic anticoagulation were included. All aPTT values obtained during active infusion were extracted, and TTR was calculated using linear interpolation between consecutive measurements. Continuous variables were summarized as medians with interquartile ranges and compared using the Wilcoxon rank-sum test; categorical TTR strata were compared using Fisher’s exact test. Results: Sixty-eight patients met the inclusion criteria, contributing 9 argatroban and 61 heparin infusion courses. Argatroban demonstrated a higher median TTR than heparin (83.3% [IQR 82.0–90.7] vs. 47.5% [32.9–62.4]; p < 0.001), with a moderate-to-large effect size (r = 0.51). Median aPTT values were similar between groups, but argatroban showed narrower dispersion and fewer prolonged subtherapeutic periods. A majority of heparin courses (56.5%) spent <50% of time within range, whereas no argatroban courses fell into this category. Conversely, 33.3% of argatroban courses achieved ≥90% TTR compared with none in the heparin group. Conclusions: In this real-world ICU cohort where argatroban was used for suspected or confirmed HIT, argatroban was associated with higher TTR than unfractionated heparin. These findings support the use of time-dependent metrics to evaluate anticoagulation quality and warrant prospective studies in more homogeneous populations.