Best Practice Methods for Living Evidence Synthesis in Health Care: An International Modified Delphi Survey
Golob, M. M.; Livingstone-Banks, J.; Vandvik, P. O.; Michaels, M.; Hodder, R. K.; Munn, Z. K.; Thomas, J.; Rada, G.; Guyatt, G.; Nunan, D.
Show abstract
BackgroundLiving evidence syntheses (LES) represent continual updates for an important topic for decision-making where there is uncertainty in the evidence. Whereas best practices for traditional evidence syntheses in health care are well established, they are not for LES. This study aimed to establish globally relevant, agreed-upon standards for considering, conducting, publishing, and implementing LES in health care. MethodsA modified Delphi consensus process was conducted. Potential participants were identified through a prior survey, workshop, and targeted outreach based on expertise and representation across global organizations producing or supporting LES. Three modified Delphi rounds were administered using JISC Online Surveys between January and April 2025. Participants rated 23 statements on a five-point Likert scale. Consensus was defined as [≥]80% agreement ( agree or strongly agree) with [≥]85% panel response rate required per round. Qualitative feedback guided iterative statement revision. Draft statements were informed by an overview of living systematic reviews, a living evidence survey plus workshop activity, and an ongoing living critical interpretive synthesis of LES. Statements expanded upon the living methodology reporting guidance published by the PRISMA-LSR group to include other considerations for LES. ResultsThe Delphi panel comprised 29 experts from around the world, with 27 (93%) completing round 1, 26 (90%) round 2, and 27 (93%) completing round 3; 19 of 23 statements achieved consensus. Statements described conduct (n=12), including set up and maintenance of living mode as well as funding and resources; reporting (n=2); publishing (n=4); and implementation/appraisal (n=1). Final statements included ways to enable the living mode, such as version history; authoring tools; collaboration; unit of update; transparency; communication; publication considerations; and digital and technological considerations. ConclusionsThis study presents the first established consensus for best practices in considering, conducting, publishing, and implementing LES in health care. These LES standards can help align global processes, improve transparency, and promote sustainability. But there is still more to be done to accomplish these objectives, requiring that groups collaborate to embrace digital tools, adopt interoperability standards, and create effective appraisal tools.
Matching journals
The top 2 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Protocol for the development of a tool (INSPECT-SR) to identify problematic randomised controlled trials in systematic reviews of health interventions 95%
- Implementation Science Protocol for a participatory, theory-informed implementation research programme in the context of health system strengthening in sub-Saharan Africa (ASSET-ImplementER) 95%
- The use of the positive deviance approach for healthcare system service improvement: A scoping review protocol 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Knowledge mobilisation of rapid evidence reviews to inform health and social care policy and practice in a public health emergency: appraisal of the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre processes and impact, 2021-23 95%
- STIMULATE-ICP-Delphi (Symptoms, Trajectory, Inequalities and Management: Understanding Long-COVID to Address and Transform Existing Integrated Care Pathways Delphi): Study Protocol 93%
- A Scoping Review Protocol on Integration of mobile-linked POC diagnostics in community-based healthcare: User Experience 93%
Similar papers in this journal
- Development of the Individual Participant Data (IPD) Integrity Tool for assessing the integrity of randomised trials using individual participant data 96%
- Citation tracking for systematic literature searching: a scoping review 95%
- Evaluation of the sensitivity, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID-19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Large language models for conducting systematic reviews: on the rise, but not yet ready for use – a scoping review 95%
- Updating the PRISMA reporting guideline for network meta-analysis: a scoping review 94%
- The use of the Registered Reports format for publication of randomized clinical trials: a cross-sectional study 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Using telehealth consultations for healthcare provision to patients from racial/ethnic minorities: A systematic review 93%
- Incorporating Preprints in Systematic Reviews: A Preliminary Study of a Novel Method for Rapid Evidence Synthesis 93%
- Use of unstructured text in prognostic clinical prediction models: a systematic review 91%
"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.