How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide

Leonie Heron · Diana Buitrago‐García · Aziz Mert Ipekci · Rico Baumann · Hira Imeri · Georgia Salanti +2 more

25 citations0/0 files storedSystematic Reviews

No readable copy stored yet — this record is metadata only.

No open-access location is known for this record yet.

Literature note Cite in a project Citation map

Meta-analysis and systematic reviews Academic Publishing and Open Access Clinical practice guidelines implementation

Abstract

BACKGROUND: The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature. METHODS: In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review. RESULTS: We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates. CONCLUSIONS: Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start.

Paper brief

Loading…

Cite this work

Citation unavailable for this work.

BibTeX RIS CSL-JSON

No public copy is stored for this record, so only the metadata is cited.

Citations in this library

Citation map →

Stored only when both papers are in the corpus — 25 citations exist upstream.

References

2021The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews 2011Interpretation of random effects meta-analyses 2017Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how 2020Software tools to support title and abstract screening for systematic reviews in healthcare: an evaluation 2016When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist 2017Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort 2019How can we ensure visibility and diversity in research contributions? How the Contributor Role Taxonomy (CRediT) is helping the shift from authorship to contributorship 2019revtools: An R package to support article screening for evidence synthesis

Cited by

2023Reviews and Reviewing: Approaches to Research Synthesis. An Annual Review of Information Science and Technology (ARIST) paper

Explore the map →

Papers that cite the same references — the relational fallback while embeddings are still backfilling.

Imported from OpenAlex (CC0) — nothing here is generated.