ArticlePloS one2012
A comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews.
Article in PloS one, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Effects of exercise in the treatment of overweight and obese children and adolescents: a systematic review of meta-analyses.Journal of obesity · 2013Pooled 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
- Best Practice Guidelines and Essential Methodological Steps to Conduct Rigorous and Systematic Meta-Reviews.Applied psychology. Health and well-being · 2019Article
- Study-based registers reduce waste in systematic reviewing: discussion and case report.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Developing and applying a 'living guidelines' approach to WHO recommendations on maternal and perinatal health.BMJ global health · 2019Review
- 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
- Citation Discovery Tools for Conducting Adaptive Meta-analyses to Update Systematic Reviews.Journal of preventive medicine and public health = Yebang Uihakhoe chi · 2016Article
- Why do we need evidence-based methods in Cochrane?The Cochrane database of systematic reviews · 2015Article
- Assessment of a method to detect signals for updating systematic reviews.Systematic reviews · 2014Article
- Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap.PLoS medicine · 2014Article
- Meta-analysis and The Cochrane Collaboration: 20 years of the Cochrane Statistical Methods Group.Systematic reviews · 2013Article
- Cochrane methods--twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods.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
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundSystematic reviews (SRs) can provide accurate and reliable evidence, typically about the effectiveness of health interventions. Evidence is dynamic, and if SRs are out-of-date this information may not be useful; it may even be harmful. This study aimed to compare five statistical methods to identify out-of-date SRs.
methodsA retrospective cohort of SRs registered in the Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Group (CPCG), published between 2008 and 2010, were considered for inclusion. For each eligible CPCG review, data were extracted and "3-years previous" meta-analyses were assessed for the need to update, given the data from the most recent 3 years. Each of the five statistical methods was used, with random effects analyses throughout the study.
resultsEighty reviews were included in this study; most were in the area of induction of labour. The numbers of reviews identified as being out-of-date using the Ottawa, recursive cumulative meta-analysis (CMA), and Barrowman methods were 34, 7, and 7 respectively. No reviews were identified as being out-of-date using the simulation-based power method, or the CMA for sufficiency and stability method. The overall agreement among the three discriminating statistical methods was slight (Kappa = 0.14; 95% CI 0.05 to 0.23). The recursive cumulative meta-analysis, Ottawa, and Barrowman methods were practical according to the study criteria.
conclusionOur study shows that three practical statistical methods could be applied to examine the need to update SRs.
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.