Affordable Access

Publisher Website

Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews.

Authors
  • Metzendorf, Maria-Inti1
  • Weibel, Stephanie2
  • Reis, Stefanie2
  • McDonald, Steve3
  • 1 Institute of General Practice, Medical Faculty of the Heinrich-Heine University, Heinrich Heine University Düsseldorf, Düsseldorf, Germany [email protected]. , (Germany)
  • 2 Department of Anaesthesiology, Intensive Care, Emergency and Pain Medicine, University Hospital Würzburg, Würzburg, Germany. , (Germany)
  • 3 Cochrane Australia, School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia. , (Australia)
Type
Published Article
Journal
BMJ evidence-based medicine
Publication Date
Aug 01, 2023
Volume
28
Issue
4
Pages
267–272
Identifiers
DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112019
PMID: 36351782
Source
Medline
Keywords
Language
English
License
Unknown

Abstract

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are an increasingly common approach to keeping reviews up to date, in which new relevant studies are incorporated as they become available, so as to inform healthcare policy and practice in a timely manner. While journal publishers have been exploring the publication of LSRs using different updating and publishing approaches, readers cannot currently assess if the evidence underpinning a published LSR is up to date, as neither the search details, the selection process, nor the list of identified studies is made available between the publication of updates. We describe a new method to transparently report the living evidence surveillance process that occurs between published LSR versions. We use the example of the living Cochrane Review on nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir (Paxlovid) for preventing and treating COVID-19 to illustrate how this can work in practice. We created a publicly accessible spreadsheet on the Open Science Framework platform, linking to the living Cochrane Review, that details the search and study selection process, enabling readers to track the progress of eligible ongoing or completed studies. Further automation of the evidence surveillance process should be explored. © Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2023. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.

Report this publication

Statistics

Seen <100 times