Skip to main page content
U.S. flag

An official website of the United States government

Dot gov

The .gov means it’s official.
Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.

Https

The site is secure.
The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.

Access keys NCBI Homepage MyNCBI Homepage Main Content Main Navigation
Comparative Study
. 2005 Oct 14:5:33.
doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-5-33.

Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

Simon D French  1 , Steve McDonald, Joanne E McKenzie, Sally E Green
Affiliations
Comparative Study

Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

Simon D French et al. BMC Med Res Methodol. .

Abstract

Background: Cochrane systematic reviews aim to provide readers with the most up-to-date evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The policy of updating Cochrane reviews every two years consumes valuable time and resources and may not be appropriate for all reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of updating Cochrane systematic reviews over a four year period.

Methods: This descriptive study examined all completed systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Issue 2, 1998. The latest version of each of these reviews was then identified in CDSR Issue 2, 2002 and changes in the review were described. For reviews that were updated within this time period and had additional studies, we determined whether their conclusion had changed and if there were factors that were predictive of this change.

Results: A total of 377 complete reviews were published in CDSR Issue 2, 1998. In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study. Of these reviews, 254 (70%) were updated. Of these updated reviews, 23 (9%) had a change in conclusion. Both an increase in precision and a change in statistical significance of the primary outcome were predictive of a change in conclusion of the review.

Conclusion: The concerns around a lack of updating for some reviews may not be justified considering the small proportion of updated reviews that resulted in a changed conclusion. A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach. Updating all reviews as frequently as every two years may not be necessary, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years.

PubMed Disclaimer

Figures

Figure 1
Figure 1
The status of all the reviews from CDSR Issue 2, 1998 in CDSR Issue 2, 2002.
Figure 2
Figure 2
Ratios of confidence intervals of the summary statistic of the primary outcome of Cochrane reviews from Issue 2, 2002 to Issue 2, 1998.
See this image and copyright information in PMC

References

    1. Chalmers I, Haynes B. Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care. BMJ. 1994;309:862–865. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Higgins J, Green S, editors . The Cochrane Library. Chichester, UK: John Wiley & Sons, Ltd; 2005. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005]
    1. Chapman A, Middleton P, Maddern G. Early updates of systematic reviews – a waste of resources? Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Pushing the Boundaries: Oxford. 2002.
    1. Hopewell S, Clarke M, Stewart L, Tierney J. Time to publication for results of clinical trials. The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews. 2001. Issue 3. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Higgins J. Prevalence and problems of updated reviews: a survey and discussion. Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics: Oxford. 1999.

Publication types

LinkOut - more resources