IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0009914.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Updating Systematic Reviews: An International Survey

Author

Listed:
  • Chantelle Garritty
  • Alexander Tsertsvadze
  • Andrea C Tricco
  • Margaret Sampson
  • David Moher

Abstract

Background: Systematic reviews (SRs) should be up to date to maintain their importance in informing healthcare policy and practice. However, little guidance is available about when and how to update SRs. Moreover, the updating policies and practices of organizations that commission or produce SRs are unclear. Methodology/Principal Findings: The objective was to describe the updating practices and policies of agencies that sponsor or conduct SRs. An Internet-based survey was administered to a purposive non-random sample of 195 healthcare organizations within the international SR community. Survey results were analyzed using descriptive statistics. The completed response rate was 58% (n = 114) from across 26 countries with 70% (75/107) of participants identified as producers of SRs. Among responders, 79% (84/107) characterized the importance of updating as high or very-high and 57% (60/106) of organizations reported to have a formal policy for updating. However, only 29% (35/106) of organizations made reference to a written policy document. Several groups (62/105; 59%) reported updating practices as irregular, and over half (53/103) of organizational respondents estimated that more than 50% of their respective SRs were likely out of date. Authors of the original SR (42/106; 40%) were most often deemed responsible for ensuring SRs were current. Barriers to updating included resource constraints, reviewer motivation, lack of academic credit, and limited publishing formats. Most respondents (70/100; 70%) indicated that they supported centralization of updating efforts across institutions or agencies. Furthermore, 84% (83/99) of respondents indicated they favoured the development of a central registry of SRs, analogous to efforts within the clinical trials community. Conclusions/Significance: Most organizations that sponsor and/or carry out SRs consider updating important. Despite this recognition, updating practices are not regular, and many organizations lack a formal written policy for updating SRs. This research marks the first baseline data available on updating from an organizational perspective.

Suggested Citation

  • Chantelle Garritty & Alexander Tsertsvadze & Andrea C Tricco & Margaret Sampson & David Moher, 2010. "Updating Systematic Reviews: An International Survey," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(4), pages 1-11, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0009914
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0009914
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009914
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0009914&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0009914?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moher & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Andrea C Tricco & Margaret Sampson & Douglas G Altman, 2007. "Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Peter J Gill & Kay Yee Wang & David Mant & Lisa Hartling & Carl Heneghan & Rafael Perera & Terry Klassen & Anthony Harnden, 2011. "The Evidence Base for Interventions Delivered to Children in Primary Care: An Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-9, August.

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    2. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    4. João Carlos Belloti & Aldo Okamura & Jordana Scheeren & Flávio Faloppa & Vinícius Ynoe de Moraes, 2019. "A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    5. Xingshun Qi & Man Yang & Weirong Ren & Jia Jia & Juan Wang & Guohong Han & Daiming Fan, 2013. "Find Duplicates among the PubMed, EMBASE, and Cochrane Library Databases in Systematic Review," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(8), pages 1-12, August.
    6. Hansen, Henrik & Trifkovic, Neda, 2013. "Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and Usage," MPRA Paper 47993, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    7. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    8. Andrea C Tricco & Jamie Brehaut & Maggie H Chen & David Moher, 2008. "Following 411 Cochrane Protocols to Completion: A Retrospective Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(11), pages 1-6, November.
    9. David Moher & Kenneth F Schulz & Iveta Simera & Douglas G Altman, 2010. "Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(2), pages 1-9, February.
    10. Yali Liu & Rui Zhang & Jiao Huang & Xu Zhao & Danlu Liu & Wanting Sun & Yuefen Mai & Peng Zhang & Yajun Wang & Hua Cao & Ke hu Yang, 2014. "Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    11. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    12. Lucy Turner & James Galipeau & Chantelle Garritty & Eric Manheimer & L Susan Wieland & Fatemeh Yazdi & David Moher, 2013. "An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    13. Osnat Wine & Alvaro Osornio Vargas & Sandra M. Campbell & Vahid Hosseini & Charles Robert Koch & Mahdi Shahbakhti, 2022. "Cold Climate Impact on Air-Pollution-Related Health Outcomes: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    14. Jana Schellinger & Kerry Sewell & Jamie E Bloss & Tristan Ebron & Carrie Forbes, 2021. "The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    15. Lisa Hartling & Michele P Hamm & Ricardo M Fernandes & Donna M Dryden & Ben Vandermeer, 2014. "Quantifying Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health: A Meta-Epidemiological Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-6, February.
    16. Tina Ljungberg & Emma Bondza & Connie Lethin, 2020. "Evidence of the Importance of Dietary Habits Regarding Depressive Symptoms and Depression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-18, March.
    17. Jonathan B Koffel, 2015. "Use of Recommended Search Strategies in Systematic Reviews and the Impact of Librarian Involvement: A Cross-Sectional Survey of Recent Authors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(5), pages 1-13, May.
    18. Xiaoqin Wang & Vivian Welch & Meixuan Li & Liang Yao & Julia Littell & Huijuan Li & Nan Yang & Jianjian Wang & Larissa Shamseer & Yaolong Chen & Kehu Yang & Jeremy M. Grimshaw, 2021. "The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    19. Peter J Gill & Kay Yee Wang & David Mant & Lisa Hartling & Carl Heneghan & Rafael Perera & Terry Klassen & Anthony Harnden, 2011. "The Evidence Base for Interventions Delivered to Children in Primary Care: An Overview of Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(8), pages 1-9, August.
    20. Xiu-xia, Li & Ya, Zheng & Yao-long, Chen & Ke-hu, Yang & Zong-jiu, Zhang, 2015. "The reporting characteristics and methodological quality of Cochrane reviews about health policy research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(4), pages 503-510.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0009914. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.