Up-to-dateness of reviews is often neglected in overviews: a systematic review.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE As systematic reviews may run out of date, it might be necessary to update them. Out-of-date reviews may jeopardize the comparability when used in the context of overviews (review of reviews). METHODS Seven electronic databases were searched for overviews up to November 2012. We first aimed to analyze whether the authors of overviews additionally searched for primary studies or alternatively explained why they did not. Second, we sought to analyze the actual publication lag (publication date of the overview - publication date of the review) in overviews and to develop recommendations for authors of overviews. RESULTS We included 147 overviews. The mean publication lag in overviews was more than 5 years. A median of 36% of the reviews were published more than 6 years ago. Only one in four reviews considered up-to-dateness. The methods for updating reviews were heterogeneous. We found no overview that systematically investigated whether an update was necessary. CONCLUSION The issue of up-to-dateness when conducting overviews seems to be neglected by most authors of overviews. Authors should assess the quality of evidence, based on their included reviews first.

[1]  Benjamin Djulbegovic,et al.  Treatment of Patients with Multiple Myeloma: An Overview of Systematic Reviews , 2010, Acta Haematologica.

[2]  L. Monasta,et al.  Early-life determinants of overweight and obesity: a review of systematic reviews , 2011 .

[3]  Monika Mierzwinski-Urban,et al.  A pragmatic critical appraisal instrument for search filters: introducing the CADTH CAI. , 2009, Health information and libraries journal.

[4]  Howard Balshem,et al.  GRADE guidelines: 3. Rating the quality of evidence. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[5]  W. Gaus.  Anmerkungen zum Institut für Qualität und Wirtschaftlichkeit im Gesundheitswesen (IQWiG) , 2006 .

[6]  C. Cates,et al.  Safety of regular formoterol or salmeterol in children with asthma: an overview of Cochrane reviews. , 2012, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[7]  Aneesa Motala,et al.  Assessment of the Need to Update Comparative Effectiveness Reviews , 2009 .

[8]  H. Buchwald,et al.  Evolution of Operative Procedures for the Management of Morbid Obesity 1950-2000 , 2002, Obesity surgery.

[9]  Jennifer S. Lin,et al.  Using Existing Systematic Reviews in Complex Systematic Reviews , 2008, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[10]  D. Pieper,et al.  Systematic review finds overlapping reviews were not mentioned in every other overview. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[11]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  Identifying Signals for Updating Systematic Reviews: A Comparison of Two Methods , 2011 .

[12]  J. Grimshaw,et al.  When and how to update systematic reviews. , 2008, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[13]  D. Cook,et al.  A guide to interpreting discordant systematic reviews. , 1997, CMAJ : Canadian Medical Association journal = journal de l'Association medicale canadienne.

[14]  G H Guyatt,et al.  Agreement among reviewers of review articles. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[15]  K. Shojania,et al.  How Quickly Do Systematic Reviews Go Out of Date? A Survival Analysis , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[16]  G. Guyatt,et al.  Validation of an index of the quality of review articles. , 1991, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[17]  Dawid Pieper,et al.  Overviews of reviews often have limited rigor: a systematic review. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[18]  Dawid Pieper,et al.  State of evidence on the relationship between high-volume hospitals and outcomes in surgery: a systematic review of systematic reviews. , 2013, Journal of the American College of Surgeons.

[19]  J. Brug,et al.  Early‐life determinants of overweight and obesity: a review of systematic reviews , 2010, Obesity reviews : an official journal of the International Association for the Study of Obesity.

[20]  Ethan M Balk,et al.  Two methods provide similar signals for the need to update systematic reviews. , 2012, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[21]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[22]  L. Hemkens,et al.  Benefit assessment of salt reduction in patients with hypertension: systematic overview , 2011, Journal of hypertension.

[23]  R. Aggarwal,et al.  Volume-Outcome Association in Bariatric Surgery: A Systematic Review , 2012, Annals of surgery.

[24]  David Moher,et al.  An evidence-based practice guideline for the peer review of electronic search strategies. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[25]  Ingvild Kjeken,et al.  There Is Inadequate Evidence to Determine the Effectiveness of Nonpharmacological and Nonsurgical Interventions for Hand Osteoarthritis: An Overview of High-Quality Systematic Reviews , 2009, Physical Therapy.

[26]  David Moher,et al.  A Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Out-of-Date Systematic Reviews , 2012, PloS one.

[27]  Denise Thomson,et al.  The evolution of a new publication type: Steps and challenges of producing overviews of reviews , 2010, Research synthesis methods.

[28]  H. Bastian,et al.  Seventy-Five Trials and Eleven Systematic Reviews a Day: How Will We Ever Keep Up? , 2010, PLoS medicine.