Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: It is challenging to keep systematic reviews (SR) current, and it is expected that SRs will be continuously updated. For some of its reviews, Cochrane has declared that they are “stable”, i.e. not in a need of updating.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze publicly available justifications for stabilizing a Cochrane review.
Methods: We conducted a methodological (research on research) study. On October 28, 2019 we searched Archie, Cochrane’s central system for managing documents and contact details and for tracking the stages of editorial and publishing process, to retrieve list of Cochrane reviews with publication flag “Version is stable”. From the ‘What’s new’ section of the stable Cochrane reviews in Cochrane Library, we extracted justification for stabilization and categorized them.
Results: We included 545 Cochrane reviews labelled in Archie as stable. The most common five reasons for stabilization was that ‘last search did not identify any potentially relevant studies likely to change conclusions’ (N=99; 18%), followed by ‘research area no longer active’ (N=86; 16%), ‘review is or will be superseded’ (N=41; 7.5%), ‘evidence is conclusive” (N=35; 6.4%) and ‘intervention no longer in general use’ (N=34; 6.2%). In 30 (5.5%) reviews the explanation for stabilization was unclear, and it was not possible to categorize the reason. There were 28 (5.1%) reviews that were stabilized because review was withdrawn. In 27 (4.9%) reviews explanation indicated that they were stabilized because it is unlikely that there will be any new studies for inclusion, in 24 (4.4%) it was indicated that no new studies likely to change the conclusions were expected, while in 22 (4%) it was indicated that a new search within two years is not likely to identify any potentially relevant studies likely to change the conclusions.
For the 269 (49%) Cochrane reviews, we considered that the justification for stabilization was not sufficiently transparent.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that Cochrane reviews would benefit from a more uniform and transparent approach to publicly available information about why a Cochrane review has been declared stable, i.e. not in a need of updating. This would be of major importance not only for Cochrane reviews, but also because the same approach could then be applied to non-Cochrane reviews and the overall standardization in priority research topics.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: This was a research methodology study and it did not include patient or healthcare consumers.
Objectives: The aim of this study was to analyze publicly available justifications for stabilizing a Cochrane review.
Methods: We conducted a methodological (research on research) study. On October 28, 2019 we searched Archie, Cochrane’s central system for managing documents and contact details and for tracking the stages of editorial and publishing process, to retrieve list of Cochrane reviews with publication flag “Version is stable”. From the ‘What’s new’ section of the stable Cochrane reviews in Cochrane Library, we extracted justification for stabilization and categorized them.
Results: We included 545 Cochrane reviews labelled in Archie as stable. The most common five reasons for stabilization was that ‘last search did not identify any potentially relevant studies likely to change conclusions’ (N=99; 18%), followed by ‘research area no longer active’ (N=86; 16%), ‘review is or will be superseded’ (N=41; 7.5%), ‘evidence is conclusive” (N=35; 6.4%) and ‘intervention no longer in general use’ (N=34; 6.2%). In 30 (5.5%) reviews the explanation for stabilization was unclear, and it was not possible to categorize the reason. There were 28 (5.1%) reviews that were stabilized because review was withdrawn. In 27 (4.9%) reviews explanation indicated that they were stabilized because it is unlikely that there will be any new studies for inclusion, in 24 (4.4%) it was indicated that no new studies likely to change the conclusions were expected, while in 22 (4%) it was indicated that a new search within two years is not likely to identify any potentially relevant studies likely to change the conclusions.
For the 269 (49%) Cochrane reviews, we considered that the justification for stabilization was not sufficiently transparent.
Conclusions: Our findings suggest that Cochrane reviews would benefit from a more uniform and transparent approach to publicly available information about why a Cochrane review has been declared stable, i.e. not in a need of updating. This would be of major importance not only for Cochrane reviews, but also because the same approach could then be applied to non-Cochrane reviews and the overall standardization in priority research topics.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: This was a research methodology study and it did not include patient or healthcare consumers.