Remember Me
Or use your Academic/Social account:


Or use your Academic/Social account:


You have just completed your registration at OpenAire.

Before you can login to the site, you will need to activate your account. An e-mail will be sent to you with the proper instructions.


Please note that this site is currently undergoing Beta testing.
Any new content you create is not guaranteed to be present to the final version of the site upon release.

Thank you for your patience,
OpenAire Dev Team.

Close This Message


Verify Password:
Verify E-mail:
*All Fields Are Required.
Please Verify You Are Human:
fbtwitterlinkedinvimeoflicker grey 14rssslideshare1
Publisher: BMJ Publishing Group Ltd.
Journal: The BMJ
Languages: English
Types: Article
Subjects: wa_525, wa_20_5, Corrections, wa_950, Research Methods & Reporting
Updating systematic reviews is, in general, more efficient than starting afresh when new evidence emerges. The Panel for Updating Guidance for Systematic reviews (PUGs), comprising review authors, editors, statisticians, information specialists, related methodologists, and guideline developers, met to develop guidance for people considering updating systematic reviews. The Panel proposed the following:\ud 1. Decisions about whether and when to update a systematic review are judgements made for individual reviews at a point in time. This can be made by agencies responsible for systematic review portfolios, journal editors with systematic review update services, or author teams considering embarking on an update of a review.\ud 2. The decision needs to take into account whether the review addresses a current question, uses valid methods and is well conducted; whether there are new relevant methods, new studies, or new information on existing included studies. Given this information, the agency, editors or authors need to judge whether the update will influence the review findings or credibility sufficiently to justify the effort in updating it.\ud 3. The Panel proposed a decision framework to navigate and report these decisions, and noted that incorporating new synthesis methods such as GRADE is often likely, in addition, to improve the quality of the analysis and the clarity of the findings.\ud 4. Given a decision to update, the process needs to start with an appraisal and revision of the background, question, inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review.\ud 5. Search strategies should be refined, taking into account changes in the question or inclusion criteria. An analysis of yield from the previous edition, in relation to databases searched, terms, and languages can make searches more specific and efficient.\ud 6. In many instances an ‘Update’ represents a new edition of the review, and authorship of the new version needs to follow ICMJE criteria; new approaches to publishing licences could help new authors build on and re-use the previous edition while giving appropriate credit to the previous authors.\ud The Panel also considered this guidance in the context of emerging technological advances in software, information retrieval, and electronic linkage and mining. With good synthesis and technology partnerships, these advances could revolutionise the efficiency of updating in the coming years.
  • The results below are discovered through our pilot algorithms. Let us know how we are doing!

    • 5 Sculpher M, Drummond M, Buxton M. The iterative use of economic evaluation as part of the process of health technology assessment. J Health Serv Res Policy 1997;2:26-30.
    • 6 Wilson E, Abrams K. From evidence based economics to economics based evidence: using systematic review to inform the design of future research. In: Shemilt I, Mugford M, Vale L, et al, eds. Evidence based economics.Blackwell Publishing, 2010doi:10.1002/9781444320398.ch12.
    • 7 Chalmers I, Enkin M, Keirse MJ. Preparing and updating systematic reviews of randomized controlled trials of health care. Milbank Q 1993;71:411-37. doi:10.2307/3350409.
    • 8 Higgins J, Green S, Scholten R. Chapter 3. Maintaining reviews: updates, amendments and feedback: Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011).Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
    • 9 Cochrane. Editorial and publishing policy resource. http://community. cochrane.org/editorial-and-publishing-policy-resource. 2016.
    • 10 Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update?Lancet 2006;367:881-3. doi:10.1016/ S0140-6736(06)68358-X.
    • 11 Prasad K, Singh MB, Ryan H. Corticosteroids for managing tuberculous meningitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;4:CD002244.
    • 12 Zani B, Gathu M, Donegan S, Olliaro PL, Sinclair D. Dihydroartemisininpiperaquine for treating uncomplicated Plasmodium falciparum malaria. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;1:CD010927.
    • 13 Adams SP, Tsang M, Wright JM. Lipid lowering eficacy of atorvastatin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:CD008226.
    • 14 Higgins J. Convincing evidence from controlled and uncontrolled studies on the lipid-lowering efect of a statin. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;12:ED000049.
    • 15 Takwoingi Y, Hopewell S, Tovey D, Sutton AJ. A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. BMJ 2013;347:f7191. doi:10.1136/bmj.f7191.
    • 16 MacLehose H, Hilton J, Tovey D, et al. The Cochrane Library: revolution or evolution? Shaping the future of Cochrane content. Background paper for The Cochrane Collaboration's Strategic Session Paris, France, 18 April 2012. http://editorial-unit.cochrane.org/sites/ editorial-unit.cochrane.org/lfies/uploads/2012-CC-strategic-session_ full-report.pdf.
    • 17 Hemilä H, Chalker E. Vitamin C for preventing and treating the common cold. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2013;(1):CD000980.
    • 18 Hahn S, Kim S, Garner P. Reduced osmolarity oral rehydration solution for treating dehydration caused by acute diarrhoea in children. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2002;(1):CD002847.
    • 19 World Health Organization (WHO). Reduced osmolarity oral rehydration salts (ORS) formulation. A report from a meeting of Experts jointly organized by UNICEF and WHO. New York: Child and Adolescent Health and Development, 18 July 2001 http://apps.who. int/iris/bitstream/10665/67322/1/WHO_FCH_CAH_01.22.pdf.
    • 20 Smaill FM, Grivell RM. Antibiotic prophylaxis versus no prophylaxis for preventing infection after cesarean section. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(10):CD007482.
    • 21 Adjuik M, Babiker A, Garner P, Olliaro P, Taylor W, White N. International Artemisinin Study Group. Artesunate combinations for treatment of malaria: meta-analysis. Lancet 2004;363:9-17. doi:10.1016/S0140-6736(03)15162-8.
    • 22 Agnihotry A, Fedorowicz Z, Nasser M. Adhesively bonded versus non-bonded amalgam restorations for dental caries. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;3:CD007517.
    • 23 Higgins JP, Altman DG, Gøtzsche PC, et al. Cochrane Bias Methods Group Cochrane Statistical Methods Group. The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011;343:d5928. doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928.
    • 24 Whiting PF, Rutjes AW, Westwood ME, et al. QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med 2011;155:529-36. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-155-8-201110180-00009.
    • 25 Sterne JAC, Higgins JPT, Reeves BC; on behalf of the development group for ROBINS-I. A tool for assessing risk of bias in nonrandomized studies of interventions, version 7. March 2016. www.riskofbias.info.
    • 26 Guyatt GH, Oxman AD, Vist GE, et al. GRADE Working Group. GRADE: an emerging consensus on rating quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. BMJ 2008;336:924-6. doi:10.1136/bmj.39489 .470347.AD.
    • 27 Schünemann HJ. Interpreting GRADE's levels of certainty or quality of the evidence: GRADE for statisticians, considering review information size or less emphasis on imprecision?J Clin Epidemiol 2016;75:6-15. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.03.018.
    • 28 Gough D. Qualitative and mixed methods in systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2015;4:181. doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0151-y.
    • 29 Richardson M, Garner P, Donegan S. Cluster randomised trials in Cochrane reviews: evaluation of methodological and reporting practice. PLoS One 2016;11:e0151818. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0151818.
    • 30 Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol 2007;7:10. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-7-10.
    • 31 Whiting P, Savović J, Higgins JP, et al. ROBIS group. ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed. J Clin Epidemiol 2016;69:225-34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005.
    • 32 Sampson M, Shojania KG, McGowan J, et al. Surveillance search techniques identified the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2008;61:755-62. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2007.10.003.
    • 33 Hemens BJ, Haynes RB. McMaster Premium LiteratUre Service (PLUS) performed well for identifying new studies for updated Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:62-72.e1. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.02.010.
    • 34 Sagliocca L, De Masi S, Ferrigno L, Mele A, Traversa G. A pragmatic strategy for the review of clinical evidence. J Eval Clin Pract 2013;19: 689-96. doi:10.1111/jep.12020.
    • 35 Rada G, Peña J, Capurro D, et al. How to create a matrix of evidence in Epistemonikos. Abstracts of the 22nd Cochrane Colloquium; Evidence-informed public health: opportunities and challenges; Hyderabad, India. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;suppl 1:132.
    • 36 Okebe JU, Yahav D, Shbita R, Paul M. Oral iron supplements for children in malaria-endemic areas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2011;(10):CD006589.
    • 37 Neuberger A, Okebe J, Yahav D, Paul M. Oral iron supplements for children in malaria-endemic areas. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;2:CD006589.
    • 38 Balshem H, Helfand M, Schünemann HJ, et al. GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. J Clin Epidemiol 2011;64:401-6. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2010.07.015.
    • 39 Chung M, Newberry SJ, Ansari MT, et al. Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:660-8. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.12.004.
    • 40 Shojania KG, Sampson M, Ansari MT, Ji J, Doucette S, Moher D. How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 2007;147:224-33. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-147-4-200708210-00179.
    • 41 Shojania K, Sampson M, Ansari M, et al. Updating systematic reviews; AHRQ technical reviews; report no 07-0087.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2007.
    • 42 Pattanittum P, Laopaiboon M, Moher D, Lumbiganon P, Ngamjarus C. A comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews. PLoS One 2012;7:e48894. doi:10.1371/journal. pone.0048894.
    • 43 Shekelle PG, Motala A, Johnsen B, Newberry SJ. Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev 2014;3:13. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-13.
    • 44 Shekelle PG, Newberry SJ, Wu H, et al. Identifying signals for updating systematic reviews: a comparison of two methods; report no 11-EHC042-EF.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2011.
    • 45 Shekelle P, Newberry S, Maglione M, et al. Assessment of the need to update comparative efectiveness reviews: report of an initial rapid program assessment (2005-2009).Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2009.
    • 46 Tovey D, Marshall R, Bazian, Hopewell S, Rader T. Fit for purpose: centralised updating support for high-priority Cochrane Reviews; National Institute for Health Research Cochrane-National Health Service Engagement Award Scheme, July 2011. https://editorial-unit. cochrane.org/sites/editorial-unit.cochrane.org/lfies/ uploads/10_4000_01%20Fit%20for%20purpose%20-%20 centralised%20updating%20support%20for%20high%20 priority%20Cochrane%20Reviews%20FINAL%20REPORT.pdf.
    • 47 Claxton K. The irrelevance of inference: a decision-making approach to the stochastic evaluation of health care technologies. J Health Econ 1999;18:341-64. doi:10.1016/S0167-6296(98)00039-3.
    • 48 Wilson EC. A practical guide to value of information analysis. Pharmacoeconomics 2015;33:105-21. doi:10.1007/s40273-014-0219-x.
    • 49 Althabe F, Belizán JM, McClure EM, et al. A population-based, multifaceted strategy to implement antenatal corticosteroid treatment versus standard care for the reduction of neonatal mortality due to preterm birth in low-income and middle-income countries: the ACT cluster-randomised trial. Lancet 2015;385:629-39. doi:10.1016/ S0140-6736(14)61651-2.
    • 50 Taylor-Robinson D, Maayan N, Soares-Weiser K, et al. Deworming drugs for soil-transmitted intestinal worms in children: efects on nutritional indicators, haemoglobin and school performance. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2012;(11):CD000371.
    • 51 van Dalen EC, van der Pal HJ, Kremer LC. Diefrent dosage schedules for reducing cardiotoxicity in people with cancer receiving anthracycline chemotherapy. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2016;3:CD005008.
    • 52 Wilson E. on behalf of the Cochrane Priority Setting and Campbell & Cochrane Economics Methods Groups. Which study when? Proof of concept of a proposed automated tool to help decision which reviews to update first. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;suppl 2:29-31.
    • 53 Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Nylund HK, Oxman AD. User testing and stakeholder feedback contributed to the development of understandable and useful Summary of Findings tables for Cochrane reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:607-19. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2009.12.013.
    • 54 Rosenbaum SE, Glenton C, Oxman AD. Summary-of-findings tables in Cochrane reviews improved understanding and rapid retrieval of key information. J Clin Epidemiol 2010;63:620-6. doi:10.1016/ j.jclinepi.2009.12.014.
    • 55 Vandvik PO, Santesso N, Akl EA, et al. Formatting modifications in GRADE evidence prolfies improved guideline panelists comprehension and accessibility to information. A randomized trial. J Clin Epidemiol 2012;65:748-55. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2011.11.013.
    • 56 International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Defining the role of authors and contributors. 2016. www.icmje.org/ recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-therole-of-authors-and-contributors.html.
    • 57 Stovold E, Beecher D, Foxlee R, Noel-Storr A. Study flow diagrams in Cochrane systematic review updates: an adapted PRISMA flow diagram. Syst Rev 2014;3:54. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-54.
    • 58 Newberry SJ, Shekelle PG, Vaiana M, et al. Reporting the findings of updated systematic reviews of comparative efectiveness: how do users want to view new information? report no 13-EHC093-EF.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013.
    • 59 Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC. Automating risk of bias assessment for clinical trials BCB'14. Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Bioinformatics, computational biology, and health informatics. 2014:88-95. http://thirdworld.nl/automating-riskof-bias-assessment-for-clinical-trials.
    • 60 Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med 2014;11:e1001603. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603.
    • 61 Elliott J, Sim I, Thomas J, et al. #CochraneTech: technology and the future of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;(9):ED000091.
    • 62 Cochrane. Project transform: the Cochrane Collaboration. 2016. http://community.cochrane.org/tools/project-coordination-andsupport/transform.
    • 63 Paynter R, Bañez L, Berlinerm E, et al. EPC methods: an exploration of the use of text-mining software in systematic reviews. Research white paper. AHRQ publication 16-EHC023-EF. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, April 2016. https://www.efectivehealthcare. ahrq.gov/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?pageaction=displa yproduct&productID=2214.
    • 64 Soares-Weiser K, Marshall R, Bergman H, et al. Updating Cochrane Reviews: results of the first pilot of a focused update. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2014;suppl 1:31-3.
    • © BMJ Publishing Group Ltd 2016 Web appendix: Supplementary material
  • No similar publications.