Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey.

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings. Methods: For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an 'LSR methods repository'. Conclusion: The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.

[1]  R. Featherstone,et al.  Ensuring quality as the basis of evidence synthesis: leveraging information specialists' knowledge, skills, and expertise. , 2018, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[2]  V. Feigin,et al.  Epidemiology of Traumatic Brain Injury in Europe: A Living Systematic Review , 2016, Journal of neurotrauma.

[3]  Lara A Kahale,et al.  Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  Georgia Salanti,et al.  Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  Byron C. Wallace,et al.  Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[6]  P. Tugwell,et al.  AMSTAR 2: a critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both , 2017, British Medical Journal.

[7]  Elie A Akl,et al.  SERIES: LIVING SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS Living systematic review: 1. Introduction d the why, what, when, and how , 2022 .

[8]  Lara A. Kahale,et al.  Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  Hester F. Lingsma,et al.  Adherence to Guidelines in Adult Patients with Traumatic Brain Injury: A Living Systematic Review , 2016, Journal of neurotrauma.

[10]  Tari Turner,et al.  Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap , 2014, PLoS medicine.

[11]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA Statement , 2009, BMJ : British Medical Journal.

[12]  J. Reunanen Search Strategies , 2021, International Journal of Obesity.