When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist

Paul Garner; Sally Hopewell; Jackie Chandler; Harriet MacLehose; Holger J. Schünemann; Elie A. Akl; Joseph Beyene; Stephanie Chang; Rachel Churchill; Karin Dearness; Gordon Guyatt; Carol Lefebvre; Beth Liles; Rachel Marshall; Laura Martínez García; Chris Mavergames; Mona Nasser; Amir Qaseem; Margaret Sampson; Karla Soares-Weiser; Yemisi Takwoingi; Lehana Thabane; Marialena Trivella; Peter Tugwell; Emma Welsh; Ed C. Wilson

doi:10.1136/bmj.i3507

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist

Paul Garner, Sally Hopewell, Jackie Chandler, Harriet MacLehose, Holger J. Schünemann, Elie A. Akl, Joseph Beyene, Stephanie Chang, Rachel Churchill, Karin Dearness, Gordon Guyatt, Carol Lefebvre, Beth Liles, Rachel Marshall, Laura Martínez García, Chris Mavergames, Mona Nasser, Amir Qaseem, Margaret Sampson, Karla Soares-WeiserYemisi Takwoingi, Lehana Thabane, Marialena Trivella, Peter Tugwell, Emma Welsh, Ed C. Wilson

Clinical Sciences

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

339 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Updating systematic reviews is, in general, more efficient than starting afresh when new evidence emerges. The Panel for Updating Guidance for Systematic reviews (PUGs), comprising review authors, editors, statisticians, information specialists, related methodologists, and guideline developers, met to develop guidance for people considering updating systematic reviews. The Panel proposed the following:

1. Decisions about whether and when to update a systematic review are judgements made for individual reviews at a point in time. This can be made by agencies responsible for systematic review portfolios, journal editors with systematic review update services, or author teams considering embarking on an update of a review.

2. The decision needs to take into account whether the review addresses a current question, uses valid methods and is well conducted; whether there are new relevant methods, new studies, or new information on existing included studies. Given this information, the agency, editors or authors need to judge whether the update will influence the review findings or credibility sufficiently to justify the effort in updating it.

3. The Panel proposed a decision framework to navigate and report these decisions, and noted that incorporating new synthesis methods such as GRADE is often likely, in addition, to improve the quality of the analysis and the clarity of the findings.

4. Given a decision to update, the process needs to start with an appraisal and revision of the background, question, inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review.

5. Search strategies should be refined, taking into account changes in the question or inclusion criteria. An analysis of yield from the previous edition, in relation to databases searched, terms, and languages can make searches more specific and efficient.

6. In many instances an ‘Update’ represents a new edition of the review, and authorship of the new version needs to follow ICMJE criteria; new approaches to publishing licences could help new authors build on and re-use the previous edition while giving appropriate credit to the previous authors.

The Panel also considered this guidance in the context of emerging technological advances in software, information retrieval, and electronic linkage and mining. With good synthesis and technology partnerships, these advances could revolutionise the efficiency of updating in the coming years.

Original language	English
Article number	i3507
Pages (from-to)	i3507
Journal	BMJ
Volume	354
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507
Publication status	Published - 20 Jul 2016

Access to Document

10.1136/bmj.i3507Licence: CC BY

Hamilton Updating-paper 24MAY2016Accepted author manuscript, 1.27 MBLicence: CC BY
Bmj 354 I3507 When and how to update systematic reviewsFinal published version, 338 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Garner, P., Hopewell, S., Chandler, J., MacLehose, H., Schünemann, H. J., Akl, E. A., Beyene, J., Chang, S., Churchill, R., Dearness, K., Guyatt, G., Lefebvre, C., Liles, B., Marshall, R., Martínez García, L., Mavergames, C., Nasser, M., Qaseem, A., Sampson, M., ... Wilson, E. C. (2016). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ, 354, i3507. Article i3507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507

@article{1f13f1e1c35d4f77a3924870da5ccfed,

title = "When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist",

abstract = "Updating systematic reviews is, in general, more efficient than starting afresh when new evidence emerges. The Panel for Updating Guidance for Systematic reviews (PUGs), comprising review authors, editors, statisticians, information specialists, related methodologists, and guideline developers, met to develop guidance for people considering updating systematic reviews. The Panel proposed the following:1. Decisions about whether and when to update a systematic review are judgements made for individual reviews at a point in time. This can be made by agencies responsible for systematic review portfolios, journal editors with systematic review update services, or author teams considering embarking on an update of a review.2. The decision needs to take into account whether the review addresses a current question, uses valid methods and is well conducted; whether there are new relevant methods, new studies, or new information on existing included studies. Given this information, the agency, editors or authors need to judge whether the update will influence the review findings or credibility sufficiently to justify the effort in updating it.3. The Panel proposed a decision framework to navigate and report these decisions, and noted that incorporating new synthesis methods such as GRADE is often likely, in addition, to improve the quality of the analysis and the clarity of the findings.4. Given a decision to update, the process needs to start with an appraisal and revision of the background, question, inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review.5. Search strategies should be refined, taking into account changes in the question or inclusion criteria. An analysis of yield from the previous edition, in relation to databases searched, terms, and languages can make searches more specific and efficient.6. In many instances an {\textquoteleft}Update{\textquoteright} represents a new edition of the review, and authorship of the new version needs to follow ICMJE criteria; new approaches to publishing licences could help new authors build on and re-use the previous edition while giving appropriate credit to the previous authors.The Panel also considered this guidance in the context of emerging technological advances in software, information retrieval, and electronic linkage and mining. With good synthesis and technology partnerships, these advances could revolutionise the efficiency of updating in the coming years.",

author = "Paul Garner and Sally Hopewell and Jackie Chandler and Harriet MacLehose and Sch{\"u}nemann, \{Holger J.\} and Akl, \{Elie A.\} and Joseph Beyene and Stephanie Chang and Rachel Churchill and Karin Dearness and Gordon Guyatt and Carol Lefebvre and Beth Liles and Rachel Marshall and \{Mart{\'i}nez Garc{\'i}a\}, Laura and Chris Mavergames and Mona Nasser and Amir Qaseem and Margaret Sampson and Karla Soares-Weiser and Yemisi Takwoingi and Lehana Thabane and Marialena Trivella and Peter Tugwell and Emma Welsh and Wilson, \{Ed C.\}",

year = "2016",

month = jul,

day = "20",

doi = "10.1136/bmj.i3507",

language = "English",

volume = "354",

pages = "i3507",

journal = "BMJ",

issn = "0959-8146",

publisher = "BMJ Publishing Group",

}

Garner, P, Hopewell, S, Chandler, J, MacLehose, H, Schünemann, HJ, Akl, EA, Beyene, J, Chang, S, Churchill, R, Dearness, K, Guyatt, G, Lefebvre, C, Liles, B, Marshall, R, Martínez García, L, Mavergames, C, Nasser, M, Qaseem, A, Sampson, M, Soares-Weiser, K, Takwoingi, Y, Thabane, L, Trivella, M, Tugwell, P, Welsh, E & Wilson, EC 2016, 'When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist', BMJ, vol. 354, i3507, pp. i3507. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.i3507

TY - JOUR

T1 - When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist

AU - Garner, Paul

AU - Hopewell, Sally

AU - Chandler, Jackie

AU - MacLehose, Harriet

AU - Schünemann, Holger J.

AU - Akl, Elie A.

AU - Beyene, Joseph

AU - Chang, Stephanie

AU - Churchill, Rachel

AU - Dearness, Karin

AU - Guyatt, Gordon

AU - Lefebvre, Carol

AU - Liles, Beth

AU - Marshall, Rachel

AU - Martínez García, Laura

AU - Mavergames, Chris

AU - Nasser, Mona

AU - Qaseem, Amir

AU - Sampson, Margaret

AU - Soares-Weiser, Karla

AU - Takwoingi, Yemisi

AU - Thabane, Lehana

AU - Trivella, Marialena

AU - Tugwell, Peter

AU - Welsh, Emma

AU - Wilson, Ed C.

PY - 2016/7/20

Y1 - 2016/7/20

N2 - Updating systematic reviews is, in general, more efficient than starting afresh when new evidence emerges. The Panel for Updating Guidance for Systematic reviews (PUGs), comprising review authors, editors, statisticians, information specialists, related methodologists, and guideline developers, met to develop guidance for people considering updating systematic reviews. The Panel proposed the following:1. Decisions about whether and when to update a systematic review are judgements made for individual reviews at a point in time. This can be made by agencies responsible for systematic review portfolios, journal editors with systematic review update services, or author teams considering embarking on an update of a review.2. The decision needs to take into account whether the review addresses a current question, uses valid methods and is well conducted; whether there are new relevant methods, new studies, or new information on existing included studies. Given this information, the agency, editors or authors need to judge whether the update will influence the review findings or credibility sufficiently to justify the effort in updating it.3. The Panel proposed a decision framework to navigate and report these decisions, and noted that incorporating new synthesis methods such as GRADE is often likely, in addition, to improve the quality of the analysis and the clarity of the findings.4. Given a decision to update, the process needs to start with an appraisal and revision of the background, question, inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review.5. Search strategies should be refined, taking into account changes in the question or inclusion criteria. An analysis of yield from the previous edition, in relation to databases searched, terms, and languages can make searches more specific and efficient.6. In many instances an ‘Update’ represents a new edition of the review, and authorship of the new version needs to follow ICMJE criteria; new approaches to publishing licences could help new authors build on and re-use the previous edition while giving appropriate credit to the previous authors.The Panel also considered this guidance in the context of emerging technological advances in software, information retrieval, and electronic linkage and mining. With good synthesis and technology partnerships, these advances could revolutionise the efficiency of updating in the coming years.

AB - Updating systematic reviews is, in general, more efficient than starting afresh when new evidence emerges. The Panel for Updating Guidance for Systematic reviews (PUGs), comprising review authors, editors, statisticians, information specialists, related methodologists, and guideline developers, met to develop guidance for people considering updating systematic reviews. The Panel proposed the following:1. Decisions about whether and when to update a systematic review are judgements made for individual reviews at a point in time. This can be made by agencies responsible for systematic review portfolios, journal editors with systematic review update services, or author teams considering embarking on an update of a review.2. The decision needs to take into account whether the review addresses a current question, uses valid methods and is well conducted; whether there are new relevant methods, new studies, or new information on existing included studies. Given this information, the agency, editors or authors need to judge whether the update will influence the review findings or credibility sufficiently to justify the effort in updating it.3. The Panel proposed a decision framework to navigate and report these decisions, and noted that incorporating new synthesis methods such as GRADE is often likely, in addition, to improve the quality of the analysis and the clarity of the findings.4. Given a decision to update, the process needs to start with an appraisal and revision of the background, question, inclusion criteria, and methods of the existing review.5. Search strategies should be refined, taking into account changes in the question or inclusion criteria. An analysis of yield from the previous edition, in relation to databases searched, terms, and languages can make searches more specific and efficient.6. In many instances an ‘Update’ represents a new edition of the review, and authorship of the new version needs to follow ICMJE criteria; new approaches to publishing licences could help new authors build on and re-use the previous edition while giving appropriate credit to the previous authors.The Panel also considered this guidance in the context of emerging technological advances in software, information retrieval, and electronic linkage and mining. With good synthesis and technology partnerships, these advances could revolutionise the efficiency of updating in the coming years.

U2 - 10.1136/bmj.i3507

DO - 10.1136/bmj.i3507

M3 - Review article

SN - 0959-8146

VL - 354

SP - i3507

JO - BMJ

JF - BMJ

M1 - i3507

ER -

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist

Abstract

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this