How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date?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  title={How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date?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… 

Time-to-update of systematic reviews relative to the availability of new evidence

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.

Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer

It is illustrated how systematic reviews of a given condition provide a fragmented, out-of-date panorama of the evidence for all treatments, which might be reduced by the development of live cumulative network meta-analyses.

A Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Out-of-Date Systematic Reviews

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.

Speed of updating online evidence based point of care summaries: prospective cohort analysis

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.

Enough evidence and other endings: a descriptive study of stable Cochrane systematic reviews in 2019

Judgments about the strength of evidence and need for research were often inconsistent with the declaration that conclusions were unlikely to change, highlighting the need for reliable analytic methods to support decision-making about the conclusiveness of evidence.

Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: when they are useful and when to be careful.

How systematic reviews and meta-analyses should be performed and how to interpret and implement their results are explained are explained.

Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster.

Stay alive! What are living systematic reviews and what are their advantages and challenges?

This editorial discusses what LSRs are, along with the advantages and challenges, and how they allow us to make better informed decisions with the authors' patients.
...

References

SHOWING 1-10 OF 35 REFERENCES

Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

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.

Taking advantage of the explosion of systematic reviews: an efficient MEDLINE search strategy.

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.

Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews

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.

Discrepancies between meta-analyses and subsequent large randomized, controlled trials.

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.

Systematic Reviews: Critical Links in the Great Chain of Evidence

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.

Validity of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality clinical practice guidelines: how quickly do guidelines become outdated?

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.

Large trials vs meta-analysis of smaller trials: how do their results compare?

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.

Comparison of evidence of treatment effects in randomized and nonrandomized studies.

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.

Randomized, controlled trials, observational studies, and the hierarchy of research designs.

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.