Panel Offers Guidance in Updating Systematic Reviews: When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist | The BMJ

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist | The BMJ

Panel Offers Guidance in Updating Systematic Reviews

The question of updating systematic reviews, which synthesize relevant research around a particular question, was the subject of an expert panel organized by the Cochrane network, proceedings of which were published in BMJ. The panel deliberated questions regarding the resources needed to update a review and ways resources must be balanced by the benefits of the new information provided. Finding the right balance is important because making health care decisions requires access to summaries of the most current evidence, but there are limited resources and many questions. The panel developed a decision framework to determine the currency of a review or whether review needs to be updated. The panel provided guidance for updating reviews. The expert panel included Stephanie Chang, M.D., director of AHRQ’s Evidence-based Practice Center program, which sponsors numerous systematic reviews and updates.

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist | The BMJ

CCBYNC Open access

Research Methods & Reporting

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist

BMJ 2016; 354 doi: http://dx.doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507 (Published 20 July 2016)Cite this as: BMJ 2016;354:i3507

• Article
• Related content
• Metrics
• Responses
• Peer review

This article has a correction. Please see:

• Errata - September 06, 2016

1. Paul Garner, professor1, 
2. Sally Hopewell, associate professor2, 
3. Jackie Chandler, methods coordinator3, 
4. Harriet MacLehose, senior editor3, 
5. Elie A Akl, professor5 6, 
6. Joseph Beyene, associate professor7, 
7. Stephanie Chang, director8, 
8. Rachel Churchill, professor9, 
9. Karin Dearness, managing editor10, 
10. Gordon Guyatt, professor4, 
11. Carol Lefebvre, information consultant11, 
12. Beth Liles, methodologist12, 
13. Rachel Marshall, editor3, 
14. Laura Martínez García, researcher13, 
15. Chris Mavergames, head14, 
16. Mona Nasser, clinical lecturer in evidence based dentistry15, 
17. Amir Qaseem, vice president and chair16 17, 
18. Margaret Sampson, librarian18, 
19. Karla Soares-Weiser, deputy editor in chief3,
20. Yemisi Takwoingi, senior research fellow in medical statistics19, 
21. Lehana Thabane, director and professor4 20,
22. Marialena Trivella, statistician21, 
23. Peter Tugwell, professor of medicine, epidemiology, and community medicine22,
24. Emma Welsh, managing editor23, 
25. Ed C Wilson, senior research associate in health economics24, 
26. Holger J Schünemann, professor4 5

Author affiliations

1. Correspondence to: P Garner Paul.Garner@lstmed.ac.uk

• Accepted 26 May 2016

Updating of systematic reviews is generally more efficient than starting all over again when new evidence emerges, but to date there has been no clear guidance on how to do this. This guidance helps authors of systematic reviews, commissioners, and editors decide when to update a systematic review, and then how to go about updating the review.