ArticleBMC medical research methodology2005
Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2005. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 21 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
21 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Effectiveness of THC-containing cannabis for inflammatory bowel disease: a systematic review.Journal of cannabis research · 2026Pooled it
- Patient characteristics affecting the prognosis of total hip and knee joint arthroplasty: a systematic review.Canadian journal of surgery. Journal canadien de chirurgie · 2008Pooled it
- When and how to update systematic reviews.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2008Pooled it
- The modified Ottawa method to establish the update need of a systematic review: glass-ionomer versus resin sealants for caries prevention.Journal of applied oral science : revista FOBPooled it
- A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- Performance of Antigen Detection Tests for SARS-CoV-2: A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis.Diagnostics (Basel, Switzerland) · 2022Review
- The automation of relevant trial registration screening for systematic review updates: an evaluation study on a large dataset of ClinicalTrials.gov registrations.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Article
- eHealth and mHealth Psychosocial Interventions for Youths With Chronic Illnesses: Systematic Review.JMIR pediatrics and parenting · 2020Review
- Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: empirical study.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2018Review
- Scoping review to identify potential non-antimicrobial interventions to mitigate antimicrobial resistance in commensal enteric bacteria in North American cattle production systems.Epidemiology and infection · 2016Article
- Considerations from the risk of bias perspective for updating Cochrane reviews.Systematic reviews · 2015Article
- Coverage of mental health and substance misuse topics in the Cochrane review system.Epidemiology and psychiatric sciences · 2013Review
- Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2012Article
- The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer.Systematic reviews · 2012Article
- Article
- Time to update and quantitative changes in the results of cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews.PloS one · 2010Article
- A systematic review of conflicting meta-analyses in orthopaedic surgery.Clinical orthopaedics and related research · 2009Review
- Motivating authors to update systematic reviews: practical strategies from a behavioural science perspective.Paediatric and perinatal epidemiology · 2008Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundCochrane systematic reviews aim to provide readers with the most up-to-date evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The policy of updating Cochrane reviews every two years consumes valuable time and resources and may not be appropriate for all reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of updating Cochrane systematic reviews over a four year period.
methodsThis descriptive study examined all completed systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Issue 2, 1998. The latest version of each of these reviews was then identified in CDSR Issue 2, 2002 and changes in the review were described. For reviews that were updated within this time period and had additional studies, we determined whether their conclusion had changed and if there were factors that were predictive of this change.
resultsA total of 377 complete reviews were published in CDSR Issue 2, 1998. In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study. Of these reviews, 254 (70%) were updated. Of these updated reviews, 23 (9%) had a change in conclusion. Both an increase in precision and a change in statistical significance of the primary outcome were predictive of a change in conclusion of the review.
conclusionThe concerns around a lack of updating for some reviews may not be justified considering the small proportion of updated reviews that resulted in a changed conclusion. A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach. Updating all reviews as frequently as every two years may not be necessary, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.