Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Momentum is building around Living Systematic Reviews (LSRs; up to date online summaries of healthcare research that are updated as new research becomes available), but the literature is currently more conceptual than practical. It is clear that LSRs have important implications for authors and publishers, but these are largely untested and little guidance exists. Since 2013, a multi-national team of researchers and clinicians has been piloting Living Systematic Reviews in traumatic brain injury (TBI) as part of a large TBI study (CENTER-TBI).
Objectives: To describe our approach to the development and implementation of LSRs in TBI.
Methods: We are employing a collaborative approach, working in partnership with researchers, clinicians, journal editors and publishers and other experts in a range of disciplines. Teams of reviewers, supported by expert advisory panels and review methodologists, are responsible for a suite of reviews on prioritised TBI topics. After initially publishing de novo systematic reviews, the first reviews transitioned into LSRs upon publication in October 2015. We expect up to 10 LSRs will be ongoing by project completion (2020). We elected to re-run searches every three months and have employed online review tools to facilitate collaboration and streamline review tasks. All review tasks are being explored to identify possibilities for automation. We have worked closely with the Editor and Publisher of the Journal of Neurotrauma to implement a mutually beneficial publishing arrangement, including frequent updates.
Results: We will discuss our proposed solutions to the managing the implications of living updates on author workload and workflow, search frequency and information sources, how technology can help, decision tools for incorporating new studies and how, when and where to publish to minimise author workload but maximise visibility and use. This will include quantitative data from our machine learning pilot to reduce screening time and bibliometric monitoring of database yields over time.
Objectives: To describe our approach to the development and implementation of LSRs in TBI.
Methods: We are employing a collaborative approach, working in partnership with researchers, clinicians, journal editors and publishers and other experts in a range of disciplines. Teams of reviewers, supported by expert advisory panels and review methodologists, are responsible for a suite of reviews on prioritised TBI topics. After initially publishing de novo systematic reviews, the first reviews transitioned into LSRs upon publication in October 2015. We expect up to 10 LSRs will be ongoing by project completion (2020). We elected to re-run searches every three months and have employed online review tools to facilitate collaboration and streamline review tasks. All review tasks are being explored to identify possibilities for automation. We have worked closely with the Editor and Publisher of the Journal of Neurotrauma to implement a mutually beneficial publishing arrangement, including frequent updates.
Results: We will discuss our proposed solutions to the managing the implications of living updates on author workload and workflow, search frequency and information sources, how technology can help, decision tools for incorporating new studies and how, when and where to publish to minimise author workload but maximise visibility and use. This will include quantitative data from our machine learning pilot to reduce screening time and bibliometric monitoring of database yields over time.