ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2012
Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 3 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Diagnostic Utility of Non-invasive Tests for Inflammatory Bowel Disease: An Umbrella Review.Frontiers in medicine · 2022Pooled it
- Association between the reproductive health of young women and cardiovascular disease in later life: umbrella review.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2020Pooled 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
- Determining the Conclusiveness of Systematic Review Evidence : A Scoping Review of Methodological Approaches.Annals of internal medicine · 2026Article
- Designing tailored maintenance strategies for systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines using the Portfolio Maintenance by Test-Treatment (POMBYTT) framework.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Review
- Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence.Systematic reviews · 2018Article
- Descriptive analysis of cochrane child-relevant systematic reviews: an update and comparison between 2009 and 2013.BMC pediatrics · 2017Article
- When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2016Article
- This Cochrane Review is closed: deciding what constitutes enough research and where next for pulmonary rehabilitation in COPD.The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Article
- Moderate quality evidence finds statistical benefit in oral health for powered over manual toothbrushes.Evidence-based dentistry · 2014Article
- Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2014Article
- A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2013Article
- Helping people make well-informed decisions about health care: old and new challenges to achieving the aim of the Cochrane Collaboration.Systematic reviews · 2013Article
- Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?Systematic reviews · 2013Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
12 authors.
Funding
Abstract
objectiveApply and compare two methods that identify signals for the need to update systematic reviews, using three Evidence-based Practice Center reports on omega-3 fatty acids as test cases. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingWe applied the RAND method, which uses domain (subject matter) expert guidance, and a modified Ottawa method, which uses quantitative and qualitative signals. For both methods, we conducted focused electronic literature searches of recent studies using the key terms from the original reports. We assessed the agreement between the methods and qualitatively assessed the merits of each system.
resultsAgreement between the two methods was "substantial" or better (kappa>0.62) in three of the four systematic reviews. Overall agreement between the methods was "substantial" (kappa=0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45-0.83).
conclusionThe RAND and modified Ottawa methods appear to provide similar signals for the possible need to update systematic reviews in this pilot study. Future evaluation with a broader range of clinical topics and eventual comparisons between signals to update reports and the results of full evidence review updates will be needed. We propose a hybrid approach combining the best features of both methods, which should allow efficient review and assessment of the need to update.
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.