OBJECTIVES: To review the current knowledge and efforts on updating systematic reviews (SRs) as applied to comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This article outlines considerations for updating CERs by including a definition of the updating process, describing issues around assessing whether to update, and providing general guidelines for the update process. Key points to consider include (1) identifying when to update CERs, (2) how to update CERs, and (3) how to present, report, and interpret updated results in CERs. RESULTS: Currently, there is little information about what proportion of SRs needs updating. Similarly, there is no consensus on when to initiate updating and how best to carry it out. CONCLUSION: CERs need to be regularly updated as new evidence is produced. Lack of attention to updating may lead to outdated and sometimes misleading conclusions that compromise health care and policy decisions. The article outlines several specific goals for future research, one of them being the development of efficient guideline for updating CERs applicable across evidence-based practice centers.
OBJECTIVES: To review the current knowledge and efforts on updating systematic reviews (SRs) as applied to comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: This article outlines considerations for updating CERs by including a definition of the updating process, describing issues around assessing whether to update, and providing general guidelines for the update process. Key points to consider include (1) identifying when to update CERs, (2) how to update CERs, and (3) how to present, report, and interpret updated results in CERs. RESULTS: Currently, there is little information about what proportion of SRs needs updating. Similarly, there is no consensus on when to initiate updating and how best to carry it out. CONCLUSION: CERs need to be regularly updated as new evidence is produced. Lack of attention to updating may lead to outdated and sometimes misleading conclusions that compromise health care and policy decisions. The article outlines several specific goals for future research, one of them being the development of efficient guideline for updating CERs applicable across evidence-based practice centers.
Authors: Georgia Ntani; Rachel Cooper; Cyrus Cooper; Avan Aihie Sayer; Janis Baird; Hayley J Denison; Richard M Dodds Journal: Arch Public Health Date: 2013-08-07
Authors: Rachit M Vakil; Ruchi S Doshi; Ambereen K Mehta; Zoobia W Chaudhry; David K Jacobs; Clare J Lee; Sara N Bleich; Jeanne M Clark; Kimberly A Gudzune Journal: BMC Public Health Date: 2016-06-01 Impact factor: 3.295
Authors: Katelynn Crick; Denise Thomson; Ricardo M Fernandes; Megan Nuspl; Dean T Eurich; Brian H Rowe; Lisa Hartling Journal: BMC Pediatr Date: 2017-07-11 Impact factor: 2.125
Authors: Erin R Weeda; Elaine Nguyen; Silas Martin; Michael Ingham; Diana M Sobieraj; Brahim K Bookhart; Craig I Coleman Journal: J Mark Access Health Policy Date: 2019-10-19
Authors: Nadera Ahmadzai; Sydne J Newberry; Margaret A Maglione; Alexander Tsertsvadze; Mohammed T Ansari; Susanne Hempel; Aneesa Motala; Sophia Tsouros; Jennifer J Schneider Chafen; Roberta Shanman; David Moher; Paul G Shekelle Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2013-11-14