» Articles » PMID: 20376338

Updating Systematic Reviews: an International Survey

Overview
Journal PLoS One
Date 2010 Apr 9
PMID 20376338
Citations 17
Authors
Affiliations
Soon will be listed here.
Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) should be up to date to maintain their importance in informing healthcare policy and practice. However, little guidance is available about when and how to update SRs. Moreover, the updating policies and practices of organizations that commission or produce SRs are unclear.

Methodology/principal Findings: The objective was to describe the updating practices and policies of agencies that sponsor or conduct SRs. An Internet-based survey was administered to a purposive non-random sample of 195 healthcare organizations within the international SR community. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The completed response rate was 58% (n = 114) from across 26 countries with 70% (75/107) of participants identified as producers of SRs. Among responders, 79% (84/107) characterized the importance of updating as high or very-high and 57% (60/106) of organizations reported to have a formal policy for updating. However, only 29% (35/106) of organizations made reference to a written policy document. Several groups (62/105; 59%) reported updating practices as irregular, and over half (53/103) of organizational respondents estimated that more than 50% of their respective SRs were likely out of date. Authors of the original SR (42/106; 40%) were most often deemed responsible for ensuring SRs were current. Barriers to updating included resource constraints, reviewer motivation, lack of academic credit, and limited publishing formats. Most respondents (70/100; 70%) indicated that they supported centralization of updating efforts across institutions or agencies. Furthermore, 84% (83/99) of respondents indicated they favoured the development of a central registry of SRs, analogous to efforts within the clinical trials community.

Conclusions/significance: Most organizations that sponsor and/or carry out SRs consider updating important. Despite this recognition, updating practices are not regular, and many organizations lack a formal written policy for updating SRs. This research marks the first baseline data available on updating from an organizational perspective.

Citing Articles

The automation of relevant trial registration screening for systematic review updates: an evaluation study on a large dataset of ClinicalTrials.gov registrations.

Surian D, Bourgeois F, Dunn A BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021; 21(1):281.

PMID: 34922458 PMC: 8684229. DOI: 10.1186/s12874-021-01485-6.


Lag times in the publication of network meta-analyses: a survey.

Tonin F, Araujo A, Fachi M, Ferreira V, Pontarolo R, Fernandez-Llimos F BMJ Open. 2021; 11(9):e048581.

PMID: 34489278 PMC: 8422315. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2020-048581.


Trial2rev: Combining machine learning and crowd-sourcing to create a shared space for updating systematic reviews.

Martin P, Surian D, Bashir R, Bourgeois F, Dunn A JAMIA Open. 2020; 2(1):15-22.

PMID: 31984340 PMC: 6951914. DOI: 10.1093/jamiaopen/ooy062.


Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report.

Shokraneh F, Adams C Syst Rev. 2019; 8(1):129.

PMID: 31146776 PMC: 6542007. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1035-3.


Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence.

Bashir R, Surian D, Dunn A Syst Rev. 2018; 7(1):195.

PMID: 30447694 PMC: 6240262. DOI: 10.1186/s13643-018-0856-9.


References
1.
Leece P, Bhandari M, Sprague S, Swiontkowski M, Schemitsch E, Tornetta P . Internet versus mailed questionnaires: a controlled comparison (2). J Med Internet Res. 2005; 6(4):e39. PMC: 1550620. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.6.4.e39. View

2.
Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M . A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007; 60(11):1095-1104. DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.03.008. View

3.
Moher D, Tetzlaff J, Tricco A, Sampson M, Altman D . Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews. PLoS Med. 2007; 4(3):e78. PMC: 1831728. DOI: 10.1371/journal.pmed.0040078. View

4.
Eysenbach G, Wyatt J . Using the Internet for surveys and health research. J Med Internet Res. 2003; 4(2):E13. PMC: 1761932. DOI: 10.2196/jmir.4.2.e13. View

5.
Edwards P, Roberts I, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Wentz R . Increasing response rates to postal questionnaires: systematic review. BMJ. 2002; 324(7347):1183. PMC: 111107. DOI: 10.1136/bmj.324.7347.1183. View