ArticlePloS one2010
Updating systematic reviews: an international survey.
Article in PloS one, 2010. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 17 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
17 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 62 citations in OpenAlex.
- Hypertonic saline (HS) for acute bronchiolitis: Systematic review and meta-analysis.BMC pulmonary medicine · 2015Pooled it
- 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
- Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Trial2rev: Combining machine learning and crowd-sourcing to create a shared space for updating systematic reviews.JAMIA open · 2019Article
- Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- A Systematic Review and Comprehensive Critical Analysis Examining the Use of Prednisolone for the Treatment of Mild to Moderate Croup.The open nursing journal · 2017Article
- Systematic review protocol assessing the processes for linking clinical trial registries and their published results.BMJ open · 2016Article
- A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2013Article
- Overlapping meta-analyses on the same topic: survey of published studies.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2013Article
- Article
- Toward modernizing the systematic review pipeline in genetics: efficient updating via data mining.Genetics in medicine : official journal of the American College of Medical Genetics · 2012Article
- Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2012Article
- Article
- Article
- The evidence base for interventions delivered to children in primary care: an overview of cochrane systematic reviews.PloS one · 2011Review
- Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up?PLoS medicine · 2010Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors at 4 institutions in 2 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) should be up to date to maintain their importance in informing healthcare policy and practice. However, little guidance is available about when and how to update SRs. Moreover, the updating policies and practices of organizations that commission or produce SRs are unclear. METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL
findingsThe objective was to describe the updating practices and policies of agencies that sponsor or conduct SRs. An Internet-based survey was administered to a purposive non-random sample of 195 healthcare organizations within the international SR community. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The completed response rate was 58% (n = 114) from across 26 countries with 70% (75/107) of participants identified as producers of SRs. Among responders, 79% (84/107) characterized the importance of updating as high or very-high and 57% (60/106) of organizations reported to have a formal policy for updating. However, only 29% (35/106) of organizations made reference to a written policy document. Several groups (62/105; 59%) reported updating practices as irregular, and over half (53/103) of organizational respondents estimated that more than 50% of their respective SRs were likely out of date. Authors of the original SR (42/106; 40%) were most often deemed responsible for ensuring SRs were current. Barriers to updating included resource constraints, reviewer motivation, lack of academic credit, and limited publishing formats. Most respondents (70/100; 70%) indicated that they supported centralization of updating efforts across institutions or agencies. Furthermore, 84% (83/99) of respondents indicated they favoured the development of a central registry of SRs, analogous to efforts within the clinical trials community. CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Most organizations that sponsor and/or carry out SRs consider updating important. Despite this recognition, updating practices are not regular, and many organizations lack a formal written policy for updating SRs. This research marks the first baseline data available on updating from an organizational perspective.
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.