Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap

Elliott, Julian; Turner, Tari; Clavisi, Ornella; Thomas, James; Higgins, Julian P T; Mavergames, Chris; Gruen, Russell L.

doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603

Cited by 459 publications

(377 citation statements)

References 30 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

363

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Model one, which is relatively slow, has been accelerated by providing additional organisational support, or by maintaining living reviews (Elliott et al, 2014). Fast response reviews (Khangura et al, 2012) in Models two and three, and reviews requiring extensive collective conceptualisation (Model four), have drawn on resources developed through Model one, and adapted them to their own ends.…”

Section: Mixed Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production

Oliver¹,

Dickson²

2016

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Support for producing systematic reviews about health systems is less well developed than for those about clinical practice. From interviewing policy makers and systematic reviewers we identified institutional mechanisms which bring systematic reviews and policy priorities closer by harnessing organisational and individual motivations, emphasising engagement between policy and research, embedding efforts in conducive structures and supporting them with formalised procedures. Four models combine mechanisms appropriately to suit the initial degree of clarity and consensus of key issues underpinning the policy problem or research question, and whether the review is for a specific decision or widespread use. key words systematic reviews • policy-relevant • health systems

show abstract

Section: Mixed Modelsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production

Oliver¹,

Dickson²

2016

Evidence &Amp; Policy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…La comprensión de que muchas de las tareas implicadas en la preparación de una revisión sistemática podrían automatizarse dio lugar a que en 2015 se estableciera la Colaboración Internacional para la Automatización de Revisiones Sistemáticas. Se han desarrollado nuevas formas para preparar y actualizar revisiones sistemáticas, como las 36,37 . Se han utilizado metanálisis acumulativos y otros métodos para identificar si se necesitan nuevas investigaciones [38][39][40][41] .…”

Section: Creación Actualización Y Difusión Eficientesunclassified

Hacia la investigación basada en la evidencia

Marqués¹,

Herrero²,

Baladía³

et al. 2018

Rev Esp Nutr Hum Diet

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

y Dietética se esfu erza po r m anten er a u n sistem a de publicaci ón co ntin ua, de m o do qu e lo s artícu lo s se publican an tes de su fo rm ato fin al (an tes de qu e el n úm ero al qu e perten ecen se h aya cerrado y/o pu blicado). De este m odo, in tentam os pon er lo s artícu lo s a disposició n de lo s lecto res/usuario s lo an tes posible.The Spanish Jo urn al o f Hum an Nutritio n and Dietetics strives to m aintain a co ntinuous publicatio n system , so that the articles are published befo re its final fo rm at (before the number to which they belong is clo sed and/or published). In this way, we try to pu t the articles available to readers/users as so on as possible. BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Lund H, Brunnhuber K, Juhl C, Robinson K, Leenaars M, Dorch BF, Jamtvedt G, Nortvedt MW, Christensen R, Chalmers I. Towards Evidence Based Research, BMJ 2016;355 :i5440 © 2016 BMJ Publishing Group Ltd. Los autores originales no han revisado ni verificado la traducción del manuscrito al español, y no necesariamente están de acuerdo con su contenido / The original authors have not revised and verified the Spanish translation, and not necessary endorse it. EstaBMJ no se hace responsable de la exactitud de la traducción publicada ni de los errores que pueda contener. No se asume responsabilidad alguna por parte de BMJ por cualquier lesión o daño a personas o propiedad por responsabilidad del producto, negligencia o de otra forma, ni de cualquier uso u operación de métodos, productos, instrucciones o ideas presentadas en el contenido original / BMJ takes no responsibility for the accuracy of the translation from the published

show abstract

“…[13] Evidence suggests that involvement in research by clinicians can improve healthcare delivery and outcomes. [14,15] Platforms like TaskExchange are a useful first step in this direction, providing an easy entry into the research world for people interested in contributing to health research, and also a useful portal for health researchers to reach out to other contributors in the broader health research and delivery system.…”

Section: Connections To Other Workmentioning

confidence: 99%

Facilitating Web-Based Collaboration in Evidence Synthesis (TaskExchange): Development and Analysis (Preprint)

Turner¹,

Steele²,

Mavergames³

et al. 2017

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap

Abstract: Julian Elliott and colleagues discuss how the current inability to keep systematic reviews up-to-date hampers the translation of knowledge into action. They propose living systematic reviews as a contribution to evidence synthesis to enhance the accuracy and utility of health evidence.

Cited by 459 publications

References 30 publications

Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production

Policy-relevant systematic reviews to strengthen health systems: models and mechanisms to support their production

Hacia la investigación basada en la evidencia

Facilitating Web-Based Collaboration in Evidence Synthesis (TaskExchange): Development and Analysis (Preprint)

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About