Evidence map›Paper›PMID 18254126›Full record

SynthesisThe Cochrane database of systematic reviews2008

When and how to update systematic reviews.

D Moher, A Tsertsvadze, A C Tricco, M Eccles, J Grimshaw, M Sampson, N Barrowman

Abstract readSystematic Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in The Cochrane database of systematic reviews, 2008. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 60 papers, 9 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
60citing papers in PubMed, 9 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

60 citing papers in PubMed, 9 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Guideline
  10. Designing and conducting systematic reviews and meta-analyses in ophthalmology.Medical hypothesis, discovery & innovation ophthalmology journal · 2026
    Review
  11. Article
  12. Review
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Review
  18. Article
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

7 authors.

D MoherChalmers Research Group, Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario, 401 Smyth Road, Room R226, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, K1H 8L1. dmoher@uottawa.ca
A Tsertsvadze
A C Tricco
M Eccles
J Grimshaw
M Sampson
N Barrowman

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundSystematic reviews are most helpful if they are up-to-date. We did a systematic review of strategies and methods describing when and how to update systematic reviews.

objectivesTo identify, describe and assess strategies and methods addressing: 1) when to update systematic reviews and 2) how to update systematic reviews. SEARCH STRATEGY: We searched MEDLINE (1966 to December 2005), PsycINFO, the Cochrane Methodology Register (Issue 1, 2006), and hand searched the 2005 Cochrane Colloquium proceedings. SELECTION CRITERIA: We included methodology reports, updated systematic reviews, commentaries, editorials, or other short reports describing the development, use, or comparison of strategies and methods for determining the need for updating or updating systematic reviews in healthcare. DATA COLLECTION AND ANALYSIS: We abstracted information from each included report using a 15-item questionnaire. The strategies and methods for updating systematic reviews were assessed and compared descriptively with respect to their usefulness, comprehensiveness, advantages, and disadvantages. MAIN

resultsFour updating strategies, one technique, and two statistical methods were identified. Three strategies addressed steps for updating and one strategy presented a model for assessing the need to update. One technique discussed the use of the "entry date" field in bibliographic searching. Statistical methods were cumulative meta-analysis and predicting when meta-analyses are outdated. AUTHORS'

conclusionsLittle research has been conducted on when and how to update systematic reviews and the feasibility and efficiency of the identified approaches is uncertain. These shortcomings should be addressed in future research.

Indexed as

Meta-Analysis as TopicReview Literature as TopicPractice Guidelines as TopicTime Factors

Identifiers

PMID18254126
PMCPMC8941847

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.