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 Mar 21:1:113.
doi: 10.12688/openreseurope.14044.2. eCollection 2021.

Methodological approaches for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis: a study protocol

Affiliations

Methodological approaches for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis: a study protocol

Ariadna Auladell-Rispau et al. Open Res Eur. .

Abstract

Background: Living evidence (LE) refers to the methodological processes that permit new research findings to be continually incorporated into evidence synthesis. This approach is of great value in the resolution of relevant and rapidly changing clinical questions. To date, the methods to carry out this type of synthesis are not completely defined, and great variability is observed in the approaches used by different groups of authors. Objective: To identify, evaluate and summarise the current methods used for living evidence synthesis Methods: We will conduct a methodological study based on a systematic literature search to identify any type of evidence synthesis such as systematic reviews, network metanalyses and overviews that used "living evidence synthesis" as part of their methods. The search will be conducted in Medline (via PubMed) and Epistemonikos databases. Additionally, we will search websites of the organisations publishing any living evidence synthesis retrieved in the two databases, in order to identify unpublished subsequent reports. Two reviewers will independently assess each article against the selection criteria, extract data on methods and procedures, and assess the methodological quality of each publication. Data will be analysed descriptively.

Keywords: Evidence Synthesis; Evidence-based medicine; Living Evidence Synthesis; Living Systematic Review; Living network metanalysis; Systematic review.

PubMed Disclaimer

Conflict of interest statement

No competing interests were disclosed.

References

    1. Uman LS: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. J Can Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 2011;20(1):57–59. - PMC - PubMed
    1. Bunn F, Trivedi D, Alderson P, et al. : The impact of Cochrane Systematic Reviews: a mixed method evaluation of outputs from Cochrane Review Groups supported by the UK National Institute for Health Research. Syst Rev. 2014;3:125. 10.1186/2046-4053-3-125 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Opheim E, Andersen PN, Jakobsen M, et al. : Poor Quality in Systematic Reviews on PTSD and EMDR - An Examination of Search Methodology and Reporting. Front Psychol. 2019;10:1558. 10.3389/fpsyg.2019.01558 - DOI - PMC - PubMed
    1. Yuan Y, Hunt RH: Systematic reviews: the good, the bad, and the ugly. Am J Gastroenterol. 2009;104(5):1086–92. - PubMed
    1. Pussegoda K, Turner L, Garritty C, et al. : Systematic review adherence to methodological or reporting quality. Syst Rev. 2017;6(1):131. 10.1186/s13643-017-0527-2 - DOI - PMC - PubMed

LinkOut - more resources