How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis

@article{Shojania2007HowQD,
  title={How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis},
  author={Kaveh G. Shojania and Margaret Sampson and Mohammed Toseef. Ansari and Jun Ji and Steve Doucette and David Moher},
  journal={Annals of Internal Medicine},
  year={2007},
  volume={147},
  pages={224-233}
}
Context Clinicians rely on systematic reviews for current, evidence-based information. Contribution This survival analysis of 100 meta-analyses indexed in ACP Journal Club from 1995 to 2005 found that new evidence that substantively changed conclusions about the effectiveness or harms of therapies arose frequently and within relatively short time periods. The median survival time without substantive new evidence for the meta-analyses was 5.5 years. Significant new evidence was already available… Expand
Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence
TLDR
A retrospective analysis of the update timing of systematic reviews published in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews in 2010 did not find clear evidence that updates were undertaken faster when new evidence was made available. Expand
Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer
TLDR
It is illustrated how systematic reviews of a given condition provide a fragmented, out-of-date panorama of the evidence for all treatments, which might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses. Expand
A Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Out-of-Date Systematic Reviews
TLDR
This study shows that three practical statistical methods could be applied to examine the need to update SRs, and indicates that the recursive cumulative meta-analysis, Ottawa, and Barrowman methods were practical according to the study criteria. Expand
Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis
TLDR
The updating speed of Dynamed clearly led the others, and a qualitative analysis of updating mechanisms is needed to determine whether greater speed corresponds to more appropriate incorporation of new information. Expand
Decisions to update comparative drug effectiveness reviews vary based on type of new evidence.
TLDR
Using periodic scans of new evidence, updating should be considered yearly for rapidly developing topics and biannually for other topics using the Kaplan-Meier product limit method and generalized estimating equation logistic regression. Expand
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses in the health sciences: Best practice methods for research syntheses.
TLDR
It is shown that it is possible for SRs to satisfy PRISMA standards yet still have poor methodological quality, and limitations of such standards and instruments in the face of the assumptions of the SR process are discussed. Expand
Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: when they are useful and when to be careful.
TLDR
How systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be performed and how to interpret and implement their results are explained are explained. Expand
Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster.
TLDR
The currency of reviews at the time of publication was studied to determine typical and achievable times to publication for systematic reviews published in journals, Health Technology Assessment technical reports or Cochrane Collaboration reviews and differences in publication speed were examined. Expand
Enough evidence and other endings: a descriptive study of stable Cochrane systematic reviews in 2019
Background: From 2006 to 2019, Cochrane reviews could be designated "stable" if they were not being updated but highly likely to be current. This provides an opportunity to observe practice inExpand
The quality of evidence for medical interventions does not improve or worsen: a Meta-Epidemiological Study of Cochrane Reviews.
TLDR
The quality of the evidence did not consistently improve or worsen in updated systematic reviews, continuing to suggest that only a minority of outcomes for healthcare interventions are supported by high-quality evidence. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
5
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 34 REFERENCES
Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?
TLDR
A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years. Expand
A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews.
TLDR
Little research has been conducted on when and how to update SRs in contrast to other methodological areas of conducting SRs (e.g., publication bias, variance imputation). Expand
Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy.
TLDR
This search strategy identified most systematic reviews without over-whelming users with numerous false-positive results and a "single-click" filter based on this strategy is now available as part of the Clinical Queries feature of PubMed. Expand
Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews
TLDR
There were large differences between Cochrane reviews and non-Cochrane reviews in the quality of reporting several characteristics, and the view that readers should not accept SRs uncritically is substantiated. Expand
Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.
TLDR
The outcomes of the 12 large randomized, controlled trials that were studied were not predicted accurately 35 percent of the time by the meta-analyses published previously on the same topics. Expand
Systematic Reviews: Critical Links in the Great Chain of Evidence
TLDR
The forthcoming series of articles on systematic reviews that begins with the paper by Cook and colleagues in this issue has been designed to collate and update that information on preparing, understanding, and using systematic reviews. Expand
Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated?
TLDR
To assess the current validity of 17 clinical practice guidelines published by the US Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) that are still in circulation, and to estimate how quickly guidelines become obsolete, criteria for defining when a guideline needs updating are developed. Expand
Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare?
TLDR
Results of smaller studies are usually compatible with the results of large studies, but discrepancies do occur even when the diversity among both large studies and smaller studies is considered. Expand
Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies.
TLDR
Despite good correlation between randomized trials and nonrandomized studies-in particular, prospective studies-discrepancies beyond chance do occur and differences in estimated magnitude of treatment effect are very common. Expand
Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.
TLDR
The results of well-designed observational studies (with either a cohort or a case-control design) do not systematically overestimate the magnitude of the effects of treatment as compared with those in randomized, controlled trials on the same topic. Expand
...
1
2
3
4
...