Background: Cochrane review authors are requested to update reviews on a biennial basis or if a substantive piece of new research emerges. Due to multiple factors, this is often delayed and reviews become outdated. Currently, of 3384 reviews published in The Cochrane Library (Issue 1, 2008) 1998 or 59% are out of date. Objectives: The Updating Project was designed to establish the feasibility of a centralised updating service for Cochrane. Methods: The project was co-ordinated by the New Zealand Branch of the Australasian Cochrane Field in conjunction with the Cochrane Menstrual Disorders and Sub-fertility Group (MDSG). A wholetime equivalent updating officer post was created (currently filled by two part-time officers), and a request for submissions to update reviews made. The updating support team at MDSG included a local Review Group Coordinator and Trials Search Co-ordinator who worked with submitting review groups and authors to update selected reviews as required. A brief survey was also sent out to relevant parties regarding their experiences as part of the Updating Project. There was a one year time frame to complete the project and submit a central report. Results: Eight of 14 submissions were selected. Seven updates were completed. A number of disadvantages and advantages to the updating process and work flow were identified. These primarily focussed around communication, preparedness, quality and methodological issues and will be discussed in detail. The results of the brief survey and the experiences of the participants in the updating process will also be presented. Conclusions: A number of recommendations will be discussed. These will include the feasibility of centralised updating which would be strictly regulated under contractual agreements and time frames from submitting review groups, contact authors, and the updating team. Methodological issues and current review quality are factors to be taken into consideration in the selection process. An algorithm relating to importance of the review to the scientific community, volume of potential studies, and number of updates needs to be formulated to enable prioritization of reviews for updating.