ArticleJournal of clinical epidemiology2024
Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later.
Article in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 8 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
8 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Research on patient-facing chatbots based on large language models in the care of older people: a living systematic review.European geriatric medicine · 2026Pooled 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
- Conducting evidence synthesis and developing evidence-based advice in public health and beyond: A scoping review and map of methods guidance.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- The Phases of Living Evidence Synthesis Using AI AI: Living Evidence Synthesis (Version 1).Journal of medical Internet research · 2026Article
- Artificial intelligence in the workplace: a living systematic review protocol on worker safety, health, and well-being implications.Systematic reviews · 2025Article
- 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
- 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
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
objectiveTo describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this. STUDY DESIGN AND
settingA Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes.
resultsThe key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback.
conclusionsWe recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.
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.