ArticleSystematic reviews2019
Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 29 papers, 2 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
29 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 89 citations in OpenAlex.
- Coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic: an overview of systematic reviews.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled it
- LOCATE: a prospective evaluation of the value of Leveraging Ongoing Citation Acquisition Techniques for living Evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- It is Not Only About Staying Alive: A Living Systematic Review of Social Care Strategies for Older Adults in Residential Care Facilities During the COVID-19 Pandemic.Journal of social work (London, England) · 2026Article
- Scope, Prospects, and Limitations of Living Systematic Reviews in Medical Literature: A Narrative Overview.Cureus · 2026Review
- Advocating for trust in and trustworthy AI to transform evidence synthesis.Environmental evidence · 2025Article
- Cochrane's COVID-19 Living Systematic Reviews: A Mixed-Methods Study of Their Conduct, Reporting and Currency.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 2024Article
- Publicly available continuously updated topic specific databases of randomised clinical trials: A scoping review.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2024Article
- A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- Applying the Non-adoption, Abandonment, Scale-up, Spread and Sustainability (NASSS) framework to evaluate automated evidence synthesis in health behaviour change.Journal of health psychology · 2024Review
- Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines.BMC health services research · 2024Article
- Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2024Article
- Living Systematic Reviews and Living Guidelines to Maintain the Currency of Public Health Guidelines.American journal of public health · 2024Article
- A comparison of machine learning methods to find clinical trials for inclusion in new systematic reviews from their PROSPERO registrations prior to searching and screening.Research synthesis methods · 2024Article
- Living evidence and adaptive policy: perfect partners?Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- [Concepts to support dynamic updating processes of guidelines and their practical implementation-Systematic literature review].Der Nervenarzt · 2023Review
- COVID-19 literature surveillance-A framework to manage the literature and support evidence-based decision-making on a rapidly evolving public health topic.Canada communicable disease report = Releve des maladies transmissibles au Canada · 2023Article
- Evidence synthesis, digital scribes, and translational challenges for artificial intelligence in healthcare.Cell reports. Medicine · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors at 2 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundLiving systematic reviews (LSRs) offer an approach to keeping high-quality evidence synthesis continually up to date, so the most recent, relevant and reliable evidence can be used to inform policy and practice, resulting in improved quality of care and patient health outcomes. However, they require modifications to authoring and editorial processes and pose technical and publishing challenges. Several teams within Cochrane and the international Living Evidence Network have been piloting living systematic reviews.
methodsWe conducted a mixed-methods evaluation with participants involved in six LSRs (three Cochrane and three non-Cochrane). Up to three semi-structured interviews were conducted with 27 participants involved with one or more of the pilot LSRs. Interviews explored participants' experiences contributing to the LSR, barriers and facilitators to their conduct and opportunities for future development. Pilot team members also completed monthly surveys capturing time for key tasks and the number of citations screened for each review.
resultsAcross the pilot LSRs, search frequency was monthly to three-monthly, with some using tools such as machine learning and Cochrane Crowd to screen searches. Varied approaches were used to communicate updates to readers. The number of citations screened varied widely between the reviews, from three to 300 citations per month. The amount of time spent per month by the author team on each review also varied from 5 min to 32 h. Participants were enthusiastic to be involved in the LSR pilot. They highlighted the importance of a motivated and well-organised team; the value of technology enablers to improve workflow efficiencies; the need to establish reliable and efficient processes to sustain living reviews; and the potential for saving time and effort in the long run. Participants highlighted challenges with the current publication processes, managing ongoing workload and the lack of resources to support LSRs in the long term.
conclusionsFindings to date support feasibility and acceptability of LSR production. There are challenges that need to be addressed for living systematic reviews to be sustainable and have maximum value. The findings from this study will be used in discussions with the Cochrane community, key decision makers and people more broadly concerned with LSRs to identify and develop priorities for scale-up.
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.