When and how to update systematic reviews

Moher, David; Tsertsvadze, Alexander; Tricco, Andrea C.; Eccles, Martin; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Sampson, Margaret; Barrowman, Nick

doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000023.pub3

Cited by 105 publications

(69 citation statements)

References 50 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There have been methodological advances since then [19, 20] and it is reasonable to assume that new research has been published [21]. The review was restricted to studies published in English which might have excluded potentially relevant papers [18].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundPatient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) can provide valuable information which may assist with the care of patients with chronic kidney disease (CKD). However, given the large number of measures available, it is unclear which PROMs are suitable for use in research or clinical practice. To address this we comprehensively evaluated studies that assessed the measurement properties of PROMs in adults with CKD.MethodsFour databases were searched; reference list and citation searching of included studies was also conducted. The COnsensus-based Standards for the selection of health Measurement INstruments (COSMIN) checklist was used to appraise the methodological quality of the included studies and to inform a best evidence synthesis for each PROM.ResultsThe search strategy retrieved 3,702 titles/abstracts. After 288 duplicates were removed, 3,414 abstracts were screened and 71 full-text articles were retrieved for further review. Of these, 24 full-text articles were excluded as they did not meet the eligibility criteria. Following reference list and citation searching, 19 articles were retrieved bringing the total number of papers included in the final analysis to 66. There was strong evidence supporting internal consistency and moderate evidence supporting construct validity for the Kidney Disease Quality of Life-36 (KDQOL-36) in pre-dialysis patients. In the dialysis population, the KDQOL-Short Form (KDQOL-SF) had strong evidence for internal consistency and structural validity and moderate evidence for test-retest reliability and construct validity while the KDQOL-36 had moderate evidence of internal consistency, test-retest reliability and construct validity. The End Stage Renal Disease-Symptom Checklist Transplantation Module (ESRD-SCLTM) demonstrated strong evidence for internal consistency and moderate evidence for test-retest reliability, structural and construct validity in renal transplant recipients.ConclusionsWe suggest considering the KDQOL-36 for use in pre-dialysis patients; the KDQOL-SF or KDQOL-36 for dialysis patients and the ESRD-SCLTM for use in transplant recipients. However, further research is required to evaluate the measurement error, structural validity, responsiveness and patient acceptability of PROMs used in CKD.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review

et al. 2017

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Cochrane recommends updating systematic reviews every two years. However, the rationale for this time cut-off is not clear, and it is not normally respected -only 38 per cent of Cochrane reviews are updated within two years of publication, and only 3 per cent of reviews published in peer-review journals are updated within two years of publication (Moher et al 2008). The Campbell Collaboration (2016) allows authors of reviews up to five years after publication of an original review to undertake an update.…”

Section: Fostering Learning By Using Programme Theory and Telling A Gmentioning

confidence: 99%

What have we learned after ten years of systematic reviews in international development?

Waddington

Masset

Jiménez³

2018

Journal of Development Effectiveness

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…The Ottawa method relies on a literature search alone from which it arrives at one of three types of signals for the need to update—a qualitative signal, a quantitative signal, or an “other” signal (Table 2)—depending on the body of literature [8]. For the purpose of this study, if the response to a key question in the original report included a meta-analysis, a quantitative signal is sought.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In 2008, the SCEPC adapted its method to assess the need for updating the CERs that had been prepared to that point (hereafter referred to as “the RAND method”) [7]. In parallel, a second method was devised at the University of Ottawa EPC (UOEPC) through assessment of the predictors of the need to update systematic reviews with meta-analyses [8], and the method was then tested using 100 meta-analyses published from 1995 to 2005 [9]. The method did not involve external expert judgment but instead relied on capturing a combination of quantitative and qualitative signals (hereafter referred to as “the Ottawa method”).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews

Chung¹,

Newberry²,

Ansari³

et al. 2012

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective Apply and compare two methods that identify signals for the need to update systematic reviews, using three Evidence-based Practice Center reports on omega-3 fatty acids as test cases. Study Design and Setting We applied the RAND method, which uses domain (subject matter) expert guidance, and a modified Ottawa method, which uses quantitative and qualitative signals. For both methods, we conducted focused electronic literature searches of recent studies using the key terms from the original reports. We assessed the agreement between the methods and qualitatively assessed the merits of each system. Results Agreement between the two methods was “substantial” or better (kappa > 0.62) in three of the four systematic reviews. Overall agreement between the methods was “substantial” (kappa = 0.64, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.45–0.83). Conclusion The RAND and modified Ottawa methods appear to provide similar signals for the possible need to update systematic reviews in this pilot study. Future evaluation with a broader range of clinical topics and eventual comparisons between signals to update reports and the results of full evidence review updates will be needed. We propose a hybrid approach combining the best features of both methods, which should allow efficient review and assessment of the need to update.

show abstract

When and how to update systematic reviews

Abstract: Little research has been conducted on when and how to update systematic reviews and the feasibility and efficiency of the identified approaches is uncertain. These shortcomings should be addressed in future research.

Cited by 105 publications

References 50 publications

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review

Measurement properties of patient-reported outcome measures (PROMs) used in adult patients with chronic kidney disease: A systematic review

What have we learned after ten years of systematic reviews in international development?

Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About