Article type
Abstract
BACKGROUND
To keep up with fast-paced research and avoid systematic reviews becoming out of date, many researchers utilize living systematic reviews (LSRs), in which the literature is continuously monitored and added to the analysis and updated results are published. The flurry of research activity during COVID-19 led to an increase in LSRs that has continued to gain momentum.
OBJECTIVES
To update a previous study by Akl et al to understand the characteristics of the most recent LSRs in health research, with a focus on evidence synthesis methodology and reporting approaches for communicating results over time.
METHODS
Databases Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for LSRs published between May 2021 and March 2023. Abstracts and full-texts were double-screened using revtools. LSRs were included if they had at least 1 version published in a peer-reviewed journal and related to any health field. Scoping, rapid, and umbrella reviews were included, as were pairwise or network meta-analyses.
A data extraction form was designed to capture information including basic LSR details, systematic review methods, living-related elements, and how results were reported and shared. Descriptive analyses were conducted, and a public collaborator (member of smoking cessation community previously involved with an e-cigarette LSR) was involved with the presentation of results to ensure accessibility to a wide audience.
RESULTS
A total of 4213 records were found, 3252 after deduplication, of which 160 were included for data extraction. Combined with the work by Akl and colleagues (who searched from January 2013 to April 2021), this gives 439 records covering 153 LSRs.
Initial observations indicate that (i) LSRs are growing in size, including studies of secondary aims, and in popularity post–COVID-19; (ii) living-related methods appear varied and subjective; and (iii) whilst platforms exist for reporting LSRs, the reporting quality for many LSRs over time are substandard.
CONCLUSIONS
Systematic reviews are fundamental to evidence-based practice, and LSRs are a key contribution to ensuring robust and up-to-date evidence production; however, guidance is still lacking. For some LSRs, the methods appear subjective, and reporting over time is lacking. Further results from this study will reveal where more work is needed.
To keep up with fast-paced research and avoid systematic reviews becoming out of date, many researchers utilize living systematic reviews (LSRs), in which the literature is continuously monitored and added to the analysis and updated results are published. The flurry of research activity during COVID-19 led to an increase in LSRs that has continued to gain momentum.
OBJECTIVES
To update a previous study by Akl et al to understand the characteristics of the most recent LSRs in health research, with a focus on evidence synthesis methodology and reporting approaches for communicating results over time.
METHODS
Databases Medline, Scopus, and the Cochrane Library were searched for LSRs published between May 2021 and March 2023. Abstracts and full-texts were double-screened using revtools. LSRs were included if they had at least 1 version published in a peer-reviewed journal and related to any health field. Scoping, rapid, and umbrella reviews were included, as were pairwise or network meta-analyses.
A data extraction form was designed to capture information including basic LSR details, systematic review methods, living-related elements, and how results were reported and shared. Descriptive analyses were conducted, and a public collaborator (member of smoking cessation community previously involved with an e-cigarette LSR) was involved with the presentation of results to ensure accessibility to a wide audience.
RESULTS
A total of 4213 records were found, 3252 after deduplication, of which 160 were included for data extraction. Combined with the work by Akl and colleagues (who searched from January 2013 to April 2021), this gives 439 records covering 153 LSRs.
Initial observations indicate that (i) LSRs are growing in size, including studies of secondary aims, and in popularity post–COVID-19; (ii) living-related methods appear varied and subjective; and (iii) whilst platforms exist for reporting LSRs, the reporting quality for many LSRs over time are substandard.
CONCLUSIONS
Systematic reviews are fundamental to evidence-based practice, and LSRs are a key contribution to ensuring robust and up-to-date evidence production; however, guidance is still lacking. For some LSRs, the methods appear subjective, and reporting over time is lacking. Further results from this study will reveal where more work is needed.