Evidence map›Paper›PMID 24558353›Full record

ArticlePLoS medicine2014

Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap.

Julian H Elliott, Tari Turner, Ornella Clavisi, James Thomas, Julian P T Higgins, Chris Mavergames, Russell L Gruen

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in PLoS medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 227 papers, 43 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
227citing papers in PubMed, 43 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

227 citing papers in PubMed, 43 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. The role of smoking in COVID-19 progression: a comprehensive meta-analysis.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2023
    Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. The Cooperation Databank: Machine-Readable Science Accelerates Research Synthesis.Perspectives on psychological science : a journal of the Association for Psychological Science · 2022
    Pooled it
  12. Effect of Attentional Focus on Sprint Performance: A Meta-Analysis.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022
    Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

167 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

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.

Julian H ElliottDepartment of Infectious Diseases, Alfred Hospital and Monash University, Melbourne, Australia ; School of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.
Tari TurnerSchool of Public Health and Preventive Medicine, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia ; World Vision Australia, Melbourne, Australia.
Ornella ClavisiNational Trauma Research Institute, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia.
James ThomasEPPI-Centre, Institute of Education, University of London, London, England.
Julian P T HigginsSchool of Social and Community Medicine, University of Bristol, Bristol, England ; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, England.
Chris MavergamesInformatics and Knowledge Management Department, The Cochrane Collaboration, Freiburg, Germany.
Russell L GruenNational Trauma Research Institute, Alfred Hospital, Melbourne, Australia ; Department of Surgery, Monash University, Melbourne, Australia.

Funding

Medical Research Council MC_U105285807Medical Research Council MR/J005037/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The current difficulties in keeping systematic reviews up to date leads to considerable inaccuracy, hampering the translation of knowledge into action. Incremental advances in conventional review updating are unlikely to lead to substantial improvements in review currency. A new approach is needed. We propose living systematic review as a contribution to evidence synthesis that combines currency with rigour to enhance the accuracy and utility of health evidence. Living systematic reviews are high quality, up-to-date online summaries of health research, updated as new research becomes available, and enabled by improved production efficiency and adherence to the norms of scholarly communication. Together with innovations in primary research reporting and the creation and use of evidence in health systems, living systematic review contributes to an emerging evidence ecosystem.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicAccess to InformationBiomedical ResearchCooperative BehaviorEvidence-Based MedicineHumansInformation DisseminationTime FactorsWorkflow

Identifiers

PMID24558353
PMCPMC3928029

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
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.