ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2023
Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review.
Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2023. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
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
11 citing papers in PubMed, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- The Phases of Living Evidence Synthesis Using AI AI: Living Evidence Synthesis (Version 1).Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Article
- Recommendation Map for Type 2 Diabetes: A Protocol for a Living Systematic Review of Clinical Practice Guidelines.Clinical and public health guidelines · 2025Article
- Lifecycles of Cochrane Systematic Reviews (2003-2024): A Bibliographic Study.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2025Article
- Article
- Trial sequential analysis involving same-year studies requires careful temporal ordering.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2025Article
- Article
- Systematic reviews of the literature: an introduction to current methods.American journal of epidemiology · 2025Article
- Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation.BMJ (Clinical research ed.) · 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
- Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 8 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last 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.