No open-access location is known for this record yet.
No open-access location is known for this record yet.
In this special issue, we have published many examples of different types of literature reviews. The hard work and effort involved in undertaking a review is evident from all of those published and this begs the question: For how long is a literature review current? In this editorial, some of the considerations regarding when and how to update a review are explored, together with what a reader should look out for when accessing a review. Over time, newly published studies are added to a body of literature, and these may have an effect on the outcome of an already published systematic review. The omission of existing evidence from a review may threaten its validity, raising the possibility of clinical practice not being informed by the most relevant or up to date evidence. In general, updating a review is recommended and required when there is new information or methods that inform a change in findings (Bashir et al., 2018). Regarding the updating of a review, organisations such as the Cochrane Collaboration provide clear guidance and recommendations about the frequency with which systematic reviews need to be updated to maintain relevancy, and a rough guide of every 2 years is often given (Higgins et al., 2022). However, updating a systematic review is a time and resource intensive activity and there are many factors to consider. Implementing fixed term intervals for the updating of systematic reviews may appear to be an overly simplistic approach to a rather complex issue. The ultimate decision to update a systematic review is usually made by the author team or an agency responsible of systematic review portfolios, such as Cochrane or Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) (Higgins et al., 2021). Over and above the emergence of new finding on a topic, factors which influence the need to update a systematic review include decisions as to whether the existing review addresses a relevant question or whether it uses current methods. Updating a systematic review should only be considered and conducted if the question remains topical, which can be reflected by debate around the review topic or the emergence of new academic publications (Bashir et al., 2018). Furthermore, if the methods used are no longer accepted as valid, then a full revision to the review would be needed rather than an update. When conducting a review update, it is imperative that new authors ensure that appropriate authorship criteria, as provided by the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) are followed. Garritty et al. (2010) have suggested that the signals for updating a systematic review may be quantitative or qualitative in nature. For example, the publication of a paper indicating a change in the magnitude of an effect estimate may provide a quantitative signal, whereas an emerging phenomenon or context may provide a qualitative signal. Periodic up-to-date searching for new evidence in an area of study is recommended, which are important to retain the credibility of a review, even if the findings and conclusions remain unchanged. So, what do we mean by updating a systematic review? Garner et al. (2016) defined the update of a systematic review as "a new edition of a published systematic review with changes that can include new data, new methods, or new analysis to the previous version." This will include not only updating the search and synthesis of new paper but also adjusting the conclusions of a review. Ordinarily, an update will follow a similar process to the original review though inclusion criteria for the updated review may require some modification because of developments within a study area. Search strategies may require some refinement or modification, especially if there are any changes have been made to the question or inclusion criteria. Perhaps surprisingly, given the undisputable importance of reviews in nursing, limited attention has been given to issue of updating, as such, the ageing of some systematic reviews may go unnoticed. Nurses reading a systematic review need to be aware of the importance of the relevancy of the review, placing focus on issues like the last date of the search, rather than the publication date of the review. Focus on the length of delay from the last search may provide the reader with a relatively straight forward way to assess the relevancy of a review, as delays in publication can occur. For greater precision, algorithms have been developed to help determine the up-to-datedness of a review, including cumulative meta-analysis sufficiency and stability methods (Pattanittum et al., 2012, PLos One). However, these do not purport to provide a standard approach to determine the need for updating a systematic review, this remains at the discretion of the author team. Importantly, there are several instances where updating a systematic review may not be recommended: if the review is poor quality; the inclusion criteria might be vague, outcomes poorly articulated or if unsuitable methods have been used then an update might not be worthwhile. In recent years, methods for systematic reviews and meta-analysis have moved forward, the process is becoming increasingly precise and sophisticated, potentially bringing into question the quality standard of a systematic review that was performed several years ago. Although the focus of this editorial is to explore issues surrounding the updating of a review, some attention to replication is necessary as these can sometimes overlap. Updating a review may be considered as a form of replication, overlapping where authors openly state the uncertainty of an index review, providing a clear indication of how the new review tackles the issue to add new information. However, replication of a review can be quite distinctive from updating (Karunananthan et al., 2021), in quantitative reviews, replication can be defined as "the reproduction of findings of previous systematic reviews looking at the same effectiveness question either by: purposefully repeating the methods to verify one or more of the empirical findings; or purposefully extending or narrowing the systematic review to a broader or more focused question" (Tugwell et al., 2020, p. 1). Replication has the potential to resolve uncertainties and controversies, it may also be indicated when there is the need for additional evidence. Replication of a review also plays an important role in the determination of bias, robustness, and generalisability within a review. Presently, limited guidance exists for authors who wish to know how and when it is appropriate to replicate their review; however, Tugwell et al. (2020) recently produced consensus guidelines for systematic reviews of interventions. As with updating, replication of a review can often be overlooked, not be performed appropriately, or conducted unnecessarily. Ioannidis (2016) suggested that by not fully engaging with the replication of SR may result in practice of policy being based on unconvincing evidence. Clearly, authors must strike a balance between the benefits of replicating or updating against the significant time and resource implications. We believe that to fully accomplish the objective of providing the best evidence to inform nursing practice and policy, more consideration needs to be given to the issues that surround updating reviews. Specifically, more attention should be given to how we can detect those reviews that require updating and to determine an appropriate time interval at which review updates should be conducted. Only when fully up to date, will a review deliver a truly accurate synthesis of evidence. We acknowledge the importance of enhancing transparency, reducing research bias, and avoiding duplication of effort and subsequent waste of valuable resources in nursing research. Updating or replicating a systematic review means much more than just including all the latest information and authors must make the compromise between reviews being up to date against the extensive resources that are required to keep them up to date. More coherent guidance is required for nurse authors regarding the issue of updating reviews, including replication. Reviews offer a valuable resource to encourage and facilitate evidence-based practice in nursing; they need to be up to date to do this.
Loading…
Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 15 citations exist upstream.
Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.
Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.