This article discusses the methodology for conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. The purpose is to summarize and compare findings from multiple systematic reviews to provide clinical decision-makers with reliable evidence. The process involves identifying and appraising published and unpublished reviews systematically, considering sources, study selection, quality assessment, result presentation, and implications for practice and research. The healthcare literature contains numerous studies on healthcare interventions, making it difficult for practitioners to keep up. Systematic reviews help summarize these studies, but with many reviews available, their quality and scope can vary. A systematic review of reviews is therefore a logical next step to compare and contrast findings from different reviews. The methods for conducting a systematic review of reviews include developing a clear research question, using the PICOS framework, and considering sources, review selection, quality assessment, result presentation, and implications. The search strategy should be comprehensive, covering relevant databases and including both published and unpublished reviews. Manual searches of key journals and reference lists are also recommended. Review selection involves identifying relevant reviews and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of reviews is crucial, and tools like AMSTAR can be used to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The results should be presented clearly, using summary tables and figures, and the quality of evidence should be assessed using methods like GRADE. The implications of the review include providing consistent conclusions and highlighting the best quality reviews. The article also discusses challenges in conducting such reviews, including the creation of a meta-analysis of included reviews, which requires careful data handling to avoid over-statistical power. In conclusion, a systematic review of reviews allows the creation of a summary of reviews in a single document, enhancing evidence-based knowledge and supporting clinical decision-making. The methods described should be useful for healthcare practitioners seeking to conduct systematic reviews of reviews to improve their understanding of healthcare interventions.This article discusses the methodology for conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. The purpose is to summarize and compare findings from multiple systematic reviews to provide clinical decision-makers with reliable evidence. The process involves identifying and appraising published and unpublished reviews systematically, considering sources, study selection, quality assessment, result presentation, and implications for practice and research. The healthcare literature contains numerous studies on healthcare interventions, making it difficult for practitioners to keep up. Systematic reviews help summarize these studies, but with many reviews available, their quality and scope can vary. A systematic review of reviews is therefore a logical next step to compare and contrast findings from different reviews. The methods for conducting a systematic review of reviews include developing a clear research question, using the PICOS framework, and considering sources, review selection, quality assessment, result presentation, and implications. The search strategy should be comprehensive, covering relevant databases and including both published and unpublished reviews. Manual searches of key journals and reference lists are also recommended. Review selection involves identifying relevant reviews and applying inclusion and exclusion criteria. Quality assessment of reviews is crucial, and tools like AMSTAR can be used to evaluate the methodological quality of systematic reviews. The results should be presented clearly, using summary tables and figures, and the quality of evidence should be assessed using methods like GRADE. The implications of the review include providing consistent conclusions and highlighting the best quality reviews. The article also discusses challenges in conducting such reviews, including the creation of a meta-analysis of included reviews, which requires careful data handling to avoid over-statistical power. In conclusion, a systematic review of reviews allows the creation of a summary of reviews in a single document, enhancing evidence-based knowledge and supporting clinical decision-making. The methods described should be useful for healthcare practitioners seeking to conduct systematic reviews of reviews to improve their understanding of healthcare interventions.