The epidemiology of systematic review updates: a longitudinal study of updating of Cochrane reviews, 2003 to 2018.
Bastian, H.; Doust, J.; Clarke, M.; Glasziou, P.
Show abstract
BackgroundThe Cochrane Collaboration has been publishing systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) since 1995, with the intention that these be updated periodically. ObjectivesTo chart the long-term updating history of a cohort of Cochrane reviews and the impact on the number of included studies. MethodsThe status of a cohort of Cochrane reviews updated in 2003 was assessed at three time points: 2003, 2011, and 2018. We assessed their subject scope, compiled their publication history using PubMed and CDSR, and compared them to all Cochrane reviews available in 2002 and 2017/18. ResultsOf the 1,532 Cochrane reviews available in 2002, 11.3% were updated in 2003, with 16.6% not updated between 2003 and 2011. The reviews updated in 2003 were not markedly different to other reviews available in 2002, but more were retracted or declared stable by 2011 (13.3% versus 6.3%). The 2003 update led to a major change of the conclusions of 2.8% of updated reviews (n = 177). The cohort had a median time since publication of the first full version of the review of 18 years and a median of three updates by 2018 (range 1-11). The median time to update was three years (range 0-14 years). By the end of 2018, the median time since the last update was seven years (range 0-15). The median number of included studies rose from eight in the version of the review before the 2003 update, to 10 in that update and 14 in 2018 (range 0-347). ConclusionsMost Cochrane reviews get updated, however they are becoming more out-of-date over time. Updates have resulted in an overall rise in the number of included studies, although they only rarely lead to major changes in conclusion.
Matching journals
The top 1 journal accounts for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 97%
- Development of a search filter to retrieve reports of interrupted time series studies from MEDLINE and PubMed 96%
- Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- To Include or Not to Include? A prescription from the pharmacy on how to use active learning assisted screening in systematic reviews 93%
- Repurposing Existing Medications for Coronavirus Disease 2019: Protocol for a Rapid and Living Systematic Review 92%
- Evidence-Based, Cost-Effective Interventions To Suppress The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Systematic Review 91%
Similar papers in this journal
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 95%
- Characteristics and completeness of reporting of systematic reviews of prevalence studies in adult populations: a meta-epidemiological study 95%
- The impact of retracted randomised controlled trials on systematic reviews and clinical practice guidelines: a meta-epidemiological study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Does advance contact with research participants increase response to questionnaires: A Systematic Review and meta-Analysis 95%
- Does pre-notification increase questionnaire response rates: a nested randomised control trial 95%
- Completeness of reporting of clinical prediction models developed using supervised machine learning: A systematic review 92%
Similar papers in this journal
- Modelling the impact of behavioural interventions during pandemics: A systematic review 93%
- Exploring scalable assessment methods for terminated trials in ClinicalTrials.gov: A cohort analysis of German and Californian trials 92%
- Transparency in peer review: Exploring the content and tone of reviewers' confidential comments to editors 92%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.