Updating of systematic reviews is generally more efficient than starting all over again when new evidence emerges, but to date there has been no clear guidance on how to do this. This guidance helps authors of systematic reviews, commissioners, and editors decide when to update a systematic review, and then how to go about updating the review.

Background Chronic low back pain is the most prevalent chronic pain condition worldwide and access to behavioral pain treatment is limited. Virtual reality (VR) is an immersive technology that may provide effective behavioral therapeutics for chronic pain. Objective We aimed to conduct a double-blind, parallel-arm, single-cohort, remote, randomized placebo-controlled trial for a self-administered behavioral skills-based VR program in community-based individuals with self-reported chronic low back pain during the COVID-19 pandemic. Methods A national online convenience sample of individuals with self-reported nonmalignant low back pain with duration of 6 months or more and with average pain intensity of 4 or more/10 was enrolled and randomized 1:1 to 1 of 2 daily (56-day) VR programs: (1) EaseVRx (immersive pain relief skills VR program); or (2) Sham VR (2D nature content delivered in a VR headset). Objective device use data and self-reported data were collected. The primary outcomes were the between-group effect of EaseVRx versus Sham VR across time points, and the between–within interaction effect representing the change in average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, stress, mood, and sleep over time (baseline to end-of-treatment at day 56). Secondary outcomes were global impression of change and change in physical function, sleep disturbance, pain self-efficacy, pain catastrophizing, pain acceptance, pain medication use, and user satisfaction. Analytic methods included intention-to-treat and a mixed-model framework. Results The study sample was 179 adults (female: 76.5%, 137/179; Caucasian: 90.5%, 162/179; at least some college education: 91.1%, 163/179; mean age: 51.5 years [SD 13.1]; average pain intensity: 5/10 [SD 1.2]; back pain duration ≥5 years: 67%, 120/179). No group differences were found for any baseline variable or treatment engagement. User satisfaction ratings were higher for EaseVRx versus Sham VR (P<.001). For the between-groups factor, EaseVRx was superior to Sham VR for all primary outcomes (highest P value=.009), and between-groups Cohen d effect sizes ranged from 0.40 to 0.49, indicating superiority was moderately clinically meaningful. For EaseVRx, large pre–post effect sizes ranged from 1.17 to 1.3 and met moderate to substantial clinical importance for reduced pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress. Between-group comparisons for Physical Function and Sleep Disturbance showed superiority for the EaseVRx group versus the Sham VR group (P=.022 and .013, respectively). Pain catastrophizing, pain self-efficacy, pain acceptance, prescription opioid use (morphine milligram equivalent) did not reach statistical significance for either group. Use of over-the-counter analgesic use was reduced for EaseVRx (P<.01) but not for Sham VR. Conclusions EaseVRx had high user satisfaction and superior and clinically meaningful symptom reduction for average pain intensity and pain-related interference with activity, mood, and stress compared to sham VR. Additional research is needed to determine durability of treatment effects and to characterize mechanisms of treatment effects. Home-based VR may expand access to effective and on-demand nonpharmacologic treatment for chronic low back pain. Trial Registration ClinicalTrials.gov NCT04415177; https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT04415177 International Registered Report Identifier (IRRID) RR2-10.2196/25291

Objective To investigate the effect of an additional review based on reporting guidelines such as STROBE and CONSORT on quality of manuscripts.Design Masked randomised trial.Population Original research manuscripts submitted to the Medicina Clínica journal from May 2008 to April 2009 and considered suitable for publication.Intervention Control group: conventional peer reviews alone. Intervention group: conventional review plus an additional review looking for missing items from reporting guidelines.Outcomes Manuscript quality, assessed with a 5 point Likert scale (primary: overall quality; secondary: average quality of specific items in paper). Main analysis compared groups as allocated, after adjustment for baseline factors (analysis of covariance); sensitivity analysis compared groups as reviewed. Adherence to reviewer suggestions assessed with Likert scale.Results Of 126 consecutive papers receiving conventional review, 34 were not suitable for publication. The remaining 92 papers were allocated to receive conventional reviews alone (n=41) or additional reviews (n=51). Four papers assigned to the conventional review group deviated from protocol; they received an additional review based on reporting guidelines. We saw an improvement in manuscript quality in favour of the additional review group (comparison as allocated, 0.25, 95% confidence interval –0.05 to 0.54; as reviewed, 0.33, 0.03 to 0.63). More papers with additional reviews than with conventional reviews alone improved from baseline (22 (43%) v eight (20%), difference 23.6% (3.2% to 44.0%), number needed to treat 4.2 (from 2.3 to 31.2), relative risk 2.21 (1.10 to 4.44)). Authors in the additional review group adhered more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews (average increase 0.43 Likert points (0.19 to 0.67)).Conclusions Additional reviews based on reporting guidelines improve manuscript quality, although the observed effect was smaller than hypothesised and not definitively demonstrated. Authors adhere more to suggestions from conventional reviews than to those from additional reviews, showing difficulties in adhering to high methodological standards at the latest research phases. To boost paper quality and impact, authors should be aware of future requirements of reporting guidelines at the very beginning of their study. Trial registration and protocol Although registries do not include trials of peer review, the protocol design was submitted to sponsored research projects (Instituto de Salud Carlos III, PI081903).

While it is important for the evidence supporting practice guidelines to be current, that is often not the case. The advent of living systematic reviews has made the concept of "living guidelines" realistic, with the promise to provide timely, up-to-date and high-quality guidance to target users. We define living guidelines as an optimization of the guideline development process to allow updating individual recommendations as soon as new relevant evidence becomes available. A major implication of that definition is that the unit of update is the individual recommendation and not the whole guideline. We then discuss when living guidelines are appropriate, the workflows required to support them, the collaboration between living systematic reviews and living guideline teams, the thresholds for changing recommendations, and potential approaches to publication and dissemination. The success and sustainability of the concept of living guideline will depend on those of its major pillar, the living systematic review. We conclude that guideline developers should both experiment with and research the process of living guidelines.

BackgroundUpdating clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) is a crucial process for maintaining the validity of recommendations. Methodological handbooks should provide guidance on both developing and updating CPGs. However, little is known about the updating guidance provided by these handbooks.MethodsWe conducted a systematic review to identify and describe the updating guidance provided by CPG methodological handbooks and included handbooks that provide updating guidance for CPGs. We searched in the Guidelines International Network library, US National Guidelines Clearinghouse and MEDLINE (PubMed) from 1966 to September 2013. Two authors independently selected the handbooks and extracted the data. We used descriptive statistics to analyze the extracted data and conducted a narrative synthesis.ResultsWe included 35 handbooks. Most handbooks (97.1%) focus mainly on developing CPGs, including variable degrees of information about updating. Guidance on identifying new evidence and the methodology of assessing the need for an update is described in 11 (31.4%) and eight handbooks (22.8%), respectively. The period of time between two updates is described in 25 handbooks (71.4%), two to three years being the most frequent (40.0%). The majority of handbooks do not provide guidance for the literature search, evidence selection, assessment, synthesis, and external review of the updating process.ConclusionsGuidance for updating CPGs is poorly described in methodological handbooks. This guidance should be more rigorous and explicit. This could lead to a more optimal updating process, and, ultimately to valid trustworthy guidelines.