How to decide whether a systematic review is stable and not in need of updating: Analysis of Cochrane reviews.
Cochrane
conclusiveness
stabilization
systematic review
updates
Journal
Research synthesis methods
ISSN: 1759-2887
Titre abrégé: Res Synth Methods
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101543738
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
Nov 2020
Nov 2020
Historique:
received:
17
07
2020
revised:
28
08
2020
accepted:
29
08
2020
pubmed:
6
9
2020
medline:
7
9
2021
entrez:
5
9
2020
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
It is challenging to keep systematic reviews (SR) current and updated. Cochrane designated some of its SRs as "stable," that is, not in need of updating. The issue of stabilizing an SR is an important in research synthesis, because it could help reduce research waste. The aim of this study was to analyze publicly available justifications for stabilizing a Cochrane review, with the ultimate goal of helping to make decisions about whether the update of any SR is warranted. We analyzed Cochrane reviews labeled as stable in Archie, Cochrane's system for managing the editorial/publishing process. From the "What's new" section of the reviews in the Cochrane Library, we extracted justification for stabilization. We included 545 Cochrane reviews labeled in Archie as stable on October 28, 2019. The most common of the five reasons for stabilization was that "last search did not identify any potentially relevant studies likely to change conclusions" (N = 99; 18%), followed by "research area no longer active" (N = 86; 16%), "review is or will be superseded" (N = 41; 7.5%), "evidence is conclusive" (N=35; 6.4%), and "intervention no longer in general use" (N = 34; 6.2%). For the 269 (49%) Cochrane reviews, we considered that the justification for stabilization was not clearly described, that is, sufficiently informative. Cochrane reviews would benefit from more transparency and consistency in publicly available justifications for stabilizing reviews. Further work in this field will help make decisions about the futility of further research and deciding on enough evidence in the field of research synthesis.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
BACKGROUND
It is challenging to keep systematic reviews (SR) current and updated. Cochrane designated some of its SRs as "stable," that is, not in need of updating. The issue of stabilizing an SR is an important in research synthesis, because it could help reduce research waste. The aim of this study was to analyze publicly available justifications for stabilizing a Cochrane review, with the ultimate goal of helping to make decisions about whether the update of any SR is warranted.
METHODS
METHODS
We analyzed Cochrane reviews labeled as stable in Archie, Cochrane's system for managing the editorial/publishing process. From the "What's new" section of the reviews in the Cochrane Library, we extracted justification for stabilization.
RESULTS
RESULTS
We included 545 Cochrane reviews labeled in Archie as stable on October 28, 2019. The most common of the five reasons for stabilization was that "last search did not identify any potentially relevant studies likely to change conclusions" (N = 99; 18%), followed by "research area no longer active" (N = 86; 16%), "review is or will be superseded" (N = 41; 7.5%), "evidence is conclusive" (N=35; 6.4%), and "intervention no longer in general use" (N = 34; 6.2%). For the 269 (49%) Cochrane reviews, we considered that the justification for stabilization was not clearly described, that is, sufficiently informative.
CONCLUSIONS
CONCLUSIONS
Cochrane reviews would benefit from more transparency and consistency in publicly available justifications for stabilizing reviews. Further work in this field will help make decisions about the futility of further research and deciding on enough evidence in the field of research synthesis.
Types de publication
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
884-890Informations de copyright
© 2020 John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
Références
Biocic M, Fidahic M, Puljak L. Reproducibility of search strategies of non-Cochrane systematic reviews published in anaesthesiology journals is suboptimal: primary methodological study. Br J Anaesth. 2019;122(6):e79-e81.
Updating Classification System: guide to applying to Cochrane Reviews. Version: July 8, 2016. Cochrane Editorial Unit. Cochrane. https://community.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/uploads/inline-files/Cochrane_UCS-Guide_8Jul16_0.pdf.
Rombey T, Lochner V, Puljak L, Konsgen N, Mathes T, Pieper D. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of non-Cochrane updates of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. Res Synth Methods. 2020;11(3):471-483.
Bashir R, Surian D, Dunn AG. Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence. Syst Rev Nov 17. 2018;7(1):195.
Cumpston M, Chandler J. Chapter IV: updating a review. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA, ed. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.0 (Updated August 2019). Cochrane Training, 2019. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Page MJ, Shamseer L, Altman DG, et al. Epidemiology and reporting characteristics of systematic reviews of biomedical research: a cross-sectional study. PLoS Med. 2016;13(5):e1002028.
Chalmers I, Glasziou P. Avoidable waste in the production and reporting of research evidence. Lancet. 2009;374(9683):86-89.
Ioannidis JP. The mass production of redundant, misleading, and conflicted systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Milbank Q. 2016;94(3):485-514.
Lacasse Y, Cates CJ, McCarthy B, Welsh EJ. This Cochrane review is closed: deciding what constitutes enough research and where next for pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD. Cochrane Database Syst Rev 2015(11):ED000107.
McCarthy B, Casey D, Devane D, Murphy K, Murphy E, Lacasse Y. Pulmonary rehabilitation for chronic obstructive pulmonary disease. \Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2015(2):CD003793.
Martin P, Surian D, Bashir R, Bourgeois FT, Dunn AG. Trial2rev: combining machine learning and crowd-sourcing to create a shared space for updating systematic reviews. JAMIA Open. 2019;2(1):15-22.
Roberts I, Ker K. How systematic reviews cause research waste. Lancet. 2015;386(10003):1536.
Siontis KC, Ioannidis JPA. Replication, duplication, and waste in a quarter million systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Circ Cardiovasc Qual Outcomes. 2018;11(12):e005212.