Living systematic review: new inputs and challenges.

This is the second article from a collaborative methodological series of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology narrative reviews. This review aims to describe living systematic reviews relevance, the considerations that should be taken when producing one, and the challenges proper of this type of review. The living systematic review is a continuous update that maintains a systematic reviews rigor and methodological quality. The living format is appropriate when the review aims to answer a priority question in terms of health decision-making, the existent certainty of the evidence for this question is low or very low, and new evidence will likely appear soon. To carry out a successful living systematic review, researchers should consider different things, such as: having a continuous and automated search, having update criteria, evaluating how to update the meta-analysis and how to perform the editorial process, and publishing in a friendly format, among others. As living systematic reviews are a new proposal, they will likely change in the future to improve their performance, so we will have to keep an eye on its future updates.

[1]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[2]  Sally Green,et al.  Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation , 2019, Systematic Reviews.

[3]  K. Bartlem,et al.  Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. , 2019, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[4]  Jacqueline Pich.  Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. , 2019, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[5]  J. Sejvar,et al.  Zika virus infection as a cause of congenital brain abnormalities and Guillain-Barré syndrome: A living systematic review , 2019, F1000Research.

[6]  N. Low,et al.  Sexual transmission of Zika virus and other flaviviruses: A living systematic review , 2018, PLoS medicine.

[7]  Lara A. Kahale,et al.  Anticoagulation for the long-term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer. , 2018, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[8]  N. Nathan,et al.  Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. , 2018, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[9]  Lara A. Kahale,et al.  Oral anticoagulation in people with cancer who have no therapeutic or prophylactic indication for anticoagulation. , 2021, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[10]  L. Naldi,et al.  Systemic pharmacological treatments for chronic plaque psoriasis: a network meta-analysis. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

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

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

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

[14]  A. Sutton.  Not enough I say! Expand the remit of living systematic reviews to inform future research. , 2017, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

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

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

[17]  C. Del Mar,et al.  Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections. , 2017, The Cochrane database of systematic reviews.

[18]  Andrew W. Brown,et al.  Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry , 2017, BMJ Open.

[19]  Steven Q Simpson,et al.  Early goal-directed therapy for severe sepsis and septic shock: A living systematic review. , 2016, Journal of critical care.

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

[21]  Philippe Ravaud,et al.  Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer , 2016, BMC Medicine.

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

[23]  Jonathan J Shuster,et al.  A Pocock approach to sequential meta‐analysis of clinical trials , 2013, Research synthesis methods.

[24]  Anne Whitehead,et al.  Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis , 2010, Statistics in medicine.

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

[26]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[27]  A Rogier T Donders,et al.  Updating meta-analyses leads to larger type I errors than publication bias. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[28]  Kristian Thorlund,et al.  Can trial sequential monitoring boundaries reduce spurious inferences from meta-analyses? , 2009, International journal of epidemiology.

[29]  J. Townend.  Guidelines on guidelines , 2007, The Lancet.

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

[31]  Joseph C Cappelleri,et al.  Applying the law of iterated logarithm to control type I error in cumulative meta-analysis of binary outcomes , 2007, Clinical trials.