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
. 2022:2345:121-134.
doi: 10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_7.

Living Systematic Reviews

Mark Simmonds  1 , Julian H Elliott  2 , Anneliese Synnot  2 , Tari Turner  2
Affiliations

Living Systematic Reviews

Mark Simmonds et al. Methods Mol Biol. 2022.

Abstract

Systematic reviews are difficult to keep up to date, but failure to do so leads to poor review currency and accuracy. "Living systematic review" (LSR) is an approach that aims to continually update a review, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs may be particularly important in fields where research evidence is emerging rapidly, current evidence is uncertain, and new research may change policy or practice decisions.This chapter describes the concept and processes of living systematic reviews. It describes the general principles of LSRs, when they might be of particular value, and how their procedures differ from conventional systematic reviews. The chapter focuses particularly on two methods of sequential meta-analysis that may be particularly useful for LSRs: Trial Sequential Analysis and Sequential Meta-Analysis, which both control for Type I error, Type II error (failing to detect a genuine effect) and take account of heterogeneity.

Keywords: Living systematic review; Sequential meta-analysis; Systematic review; Trial sequential analysis.

PubMed Disclaimer

References

    1. Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Schunemann HJ, Akl EA, Beyene J, Chang S, Churchill R, Dearness K, Guyatt G, Lefebvre C, Liles B, Marshall R, Martinez Garcia L, Mavergames C, Nasser M, Qaseem A, Sampson M, Soares-Weiser K, Takwoingi Y, Thabane L, Trivella M, Tugwell P, Welsh E, Wilson EC (2016) When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ 354:i3507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D (2007) How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 147(4):224–233. https://doi.org/10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179 - DOI - PubMed
    1. Crequit P, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P (2016) Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer. BMC Med 14:8. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0555-0 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, Perrier L, Hutton B, Moher D, Straus SE (2015) A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med 13:224. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 - DOI - PubMed - PMC
    1. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, Hutton B, Moher D, Sherifali D, Straus SE (2016) An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol 70:61–67. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.012 - DOI - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources