When and how to update systematic reviews

Moher, David; Barrowman, Nick; Daniel, Ron; Eccles, M; Grimshaw, Jeremy; Sampson, Margaret Joan; Tricco, Andrea C; Tsertsvadze, Alexander

doi:10.1002/14651858.mr000023

Cited by 26 publications

(27 citation statements)

References 29 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…[40][41][42][43][44][45] Our search strategy included any review published up to August 2014. We did not update eligible reviews or conduct new reviews because of the scope of work required.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventing Child and Adolescent Anxiety Disorders: Overview of Systematic Reviews

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Overviews of systematic reviews (OSRs) provide rapid access to high quality, consolidated research evidence about prevention intervention options, supporting evidence-informed decision-making, and the identification of fruitful areas of new research. This OSR addressed three questions about prevention strategies for child and adolescent anxiety: (1) Does the intervention prevent anxiety diagnosis and/or reduce anxiety symptoms compared to passive controls? (2) Is the intervention equal to or more effective than active controls? (3) What is the evidence quality (EQ) for the intervention? Prespecified inclusion criteria identified systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2000-2014) with an AMSTAR quality score ≥ 3/5. EQ was rated using Oxford evidence levels EQ1 (highest) to EQ5 (lowest). Three reviews met inclusion criteria. One narrative systematic review concluded school-based interventions reduce anxiety symptoms. One meta-analysis pooled 65 randomized controlled trials (RCTs; any intervention) and reported a small, statistically significant reduction in anxiety symptoms and diagnosis incidence. Neither review provided pooled effect size estimates for specific intervention options defined by type (i.e., universal/selective/indicated), intervention content, or comparison group (i.e., passive/active control), thus precluding EQ ratings. One meta-analysis pooled trials of vigorous exercise and reported small, nonstatistically significant reductions in anxiety symptoms for comparisons against passive and active controls (EQ1). Better use of primary studies in meta-analyses, including program-specific pooled effect size estimates and network meta-analysis is needed to guide evidence-informed anxiety prevention program choices. RCTs of innovative community/primary care based interventions and web-based strategies can fill knowledge gaps.

show abstract

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Preventing Child and Adolescent Anxiety Disorders: Overview of Systematic Reviews

et al. 2015

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, to enhance clinical relevance, the approach of this review was to include any validated clinical information for both potential predictor variables and measures of outcome. Furthermore, advances in search strategies for prognostic and nonrandomized studies, as well as more studies investigating progression, are likely to have led to additional evidence being available in the field of knee OA progression, which makes a new review both timely and relevant (8).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Patient characteristics that predict progression of knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review of prognostic studies

Chapple

Nicholson

Baxter

et al. 2011

Arthritis Care & Research

126

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The methodological quality, defined as the degree of confidence that the design and reporting of the study were free from bias, 16 was evaluated by the authors, taking into account the results from the Cochrane systematic reviews included. For additional randomized clinical trials that were analyzed, the randomization process was the main methodological criterion evaluated.…”

Section: Assessment Of Methodological Qualitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Efficacy and safety of atypical antipsychotic drugs (quetiapine, risperidone, aripiprazole and paliperidone) compared with placebo or typical antipsychotic drugs for treating refractory schizophrenia: overview of systematic reviews

et al. 2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Efficacy and safety of atypical antipsychotic drugs (quetiapine, risperidone, aripiprazole and paliperidone) compared with placebo or typical antipsychotic drugs for treating refractory schizophrenia: overview of systematic reviewsEficácia e segurança dos antipsicóticos atípicos (quetiapina, risperidona, aripiprazol, paliperidona) ABSTRACTCONTEXT AND OBJECTIVE: According to some cohort studies, the prevalence of refractory schizophrenia (RS) is 20-40%. Our aim was to evaluate the effectiveness and safety of aripiprazole, paliperidone, quetiapine and risperidone for treating RS. METHODS:This was a critical appraisal of Cochrane reviews published in the Cochrane Library, supplemented with reference to more recent randomized controlled trials (RCTs) on RS. The following databases were searched: Medical Literature Analysis and Retrieval System Online (Medline) RESULTS: Seven Cochrane systematic reviews and 10 additional RCTs were included in this review. The data generally showed minor differences between the atypical antipsychotics evaluated and typical antipsychotics, regarding improvement in disease symptoms, despite better adherence to treatment with atypical antipsychotics. Risperidone was specifically evaluated in patients with RS in one of the systematic reviews included, with favorable outcomes, but without definitive superiority compared with other drugs of proven efficacy, like amisulpride, clozapine and olanzapine. CONCLUSIONS:The findings underscore the difficulty in treating these patients, with high dropout rates and treatment patterns of modest improvement in assessments of effectiveness. Atypical antipsychotics have advantages over typical antipsychotics mainly through their better safety profile, which leads to better adherence to treatment. A combination of antipsychotics may also be an option for some refractory patients. RESUMOCONTEXTO E OBJETIVO: De acordo com alguns estudos de coorte, a prevalência da esquizofrenia refratária (ER) está entre 20-40%. Nosso objetivo foi avaliar a efetividade e segurança de aripiprazol, paliperidona, quetiapina e risperidona no tratamento da esquizofrenia refratária. RESULTADOS: Sete revisões sistemáticas Cochrane e 10 ECRs complementares foram incluídos nessa revisão. No geral os dados demonstram pequenas diferenças entre os antipsicóticos atípicos avaliados e os típicos na melhora dos sintomas da doença, apesar da melhor adesão ao tratamento com os atípicos. A risperidona foi avaliada especificamente em pacientes com esquizofrenia refratária em uma das revisões sistemáticas incluídas, a qual demonstrou desfechos favoráveis, porém não definitivos quando comparada a drogas também com eficácia comprovada como amisulprida, clozapina e olanzapina. MÉTODOS: Avaliação crítica das revisões Cochrane publicadas na CONCLUSÕES:Os dados reforçam a dificuldade de tratar esses pacientes, com elevadas taxas de desistência do tratamento e padrões de melhora modestos nas avaliações de eficácia. Os antipsicóticos atípicos têm vantagens sobre os típicos principalmente pelo melh...

show abstract

When and how to update systematic reviews

Cited by 26 publications

References 29 publications

Preventing Child and Adolescent Anxiety Disorders: Overview of Systematic Reviews

Preventing Child and Adolescent Anxiety Disorders: Overview of Systematic Reviews

Patient characteristics that predict progression of knee osteoarthritis: A systematic review of prognostic studies

Efficacy and safety of atypical antipsychotic drugs (quetiapine, risperidone, aripiprazole and paliperidone) compared with placebo or typical antipsychotic drugs for treating refractory schizophrenia: overview of systematic reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About