Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

Simon D. French; Steve McDonald; Joanne E. McKenzie; Sally E. Green

doi:10.1186/1471-2288-5-33

Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

Simon D. French^*, Steve McDonald, Joanne E. McKenzie, Sally E. Green

^*Corresponding author for this work

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

48 Citations (Scopus)

43 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Background: Cochrane systematic reviews aim to provide readers with the most up-to-date evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The policy of updating Cochrane reviews every two years consumes valuable time and resources and may not be appropriate for all reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of updating Cochrane systematic reviews over a four year period.

Methods: This descriptive study examined all completed systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Issue 2, 1998. The latest version of each of these reviews was then identified in CDSR Issue 2, 2002 and changes in the review were described. For reviews that were updated within this time period and had additional studies, we determined whether their conclusion had changed and if there were factors that were predictive of this change.

Results: A total of 377 complete reviews were published in CDSR Issue 2, 1998. In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study. Of these reviews, 254 (70%) were updated. Of these updated reviews, 23 (9%) had a change in conclusion. Both an increase in precision and a change in statistical significance of the primary outcome were predictive of a change in conclusion of the review.

Conclusion: The concerns around a lack of updating for some reviews may not be justified considering the small proportion of updated reviews that resulted in a changed conclusion. A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach. Updating all reviews as frequently as every two years may not be necessary, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years.

Original language	English
Article number	33
Number of pages	6
Journal	BMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume	5
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/1471-2288-5-33
Publication status	Published - 14 Oct 2005
Externally published	Yes

Bibliographical note

Copyright the Author(s) 2005. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

Access to Document

10.1186/1471-2288-5-33

Publisher version (open access)Final published version, 166 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

@article{bf196d2a6ac448e59379cba3ea40eb41,

title = "Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?",

abstract = "Background: Cochrane systematic reviews aim to provide readers with the most up-to-date evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The policy of updating Cochrane reviews every two years consumes valuable time and resources and may not be appropriate for all reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of updating Cochrane systematic reviews over a four year period. Methods: This descriptive study examined all completed systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Issue 2, 1998. The latest version of each of these reviews was then identified in CDSR Issue 2, 2002 and changes in the review were described. For reviews that were updated within this time period and had additional studies, we determined whether their conclusion had changed and if there were factors that were predictive of this change. Results: A total of 377 complete reviews were published in CDSR Issue 2, 1998. In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study. Of these reviews, 254 (70%) were updated. Of these updated reviews, 23 (9%) had a change in conclusion. Both an increase in precision and a change in statistical significance of the primary outcome were predictive of a change in conclusion of the review. Conclusion: The concerns around a lack of updating for some reviews may not be justified considering the small proportion of updated reviews that resulted in a changed conclusion. A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach. Updating all reviews as frequently as every two years may not be necessary, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years.",

author = "French, {Simon D.} and Steve McDonald and McKenzie, {Joanne E.} and Green, {Sally E.}",

note = "Copyright the Author(s) 2005. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.",

year = "2005",

month = oct,

day = "14",

doi = "10.1186/1471-2288-5-33",

language = "English",

volume = "5",

journal = "BMC Medical Research Methodology",

issn = "1471-2288",

publisher = "Springer, Springer Nature",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Investing in updating

T2 - how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

AU - French, Simon D.

AU - McDonald, Steve

AU - McKenzie, Joanne E.

AU - Green, Sally E.

N1 - Copyright the Author(s) 2005. Version archived for private and non-commercial use with the permission of the author/s and according to publisher conditions. For further rights please contact the publisher.

PY - 2005/10/14

Y1 - 2005/10/14

N2 - Background: Cochrane systematic reviews aim to provide readers with the most up-to-date evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The policy of updating Cochrane reviews every two years consumes valuable time and resources and may not be appropriate for all reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of updating Cochrane systematic reviews over a four year period. Methods: This descriptive study examined all completed systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Issue 2, 1998. The latest version of each of these reviews was then identified in CDSR Issue 2, 2002 and changes in the review were described. For reviews that were updated within this time period and had additional studies, we determined whether their conclusion had changed and if there were factors that were predictive of this change. Results: A total of 377 complete reviews were published in CDSR Issue 2, 1998. In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study. Of these reviews, 254 (70%) were updated. Of these updated reviews, 23 (9%) had a change in conclusion. Both an increase in precision and a change in statistical significance of the primary outcome were predictive of a change in conclusion of the review. Conclusion: The concerns around a lack of updating for some reviews may not be justified considering the small proportion of updated reviews that resulted in a changed conclusion. A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach. Updating all reviews as frequently as every two years may not be necessary, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years.

AB - Background: Cochrane systematic reviews aim to provide readers with the most up-to-date evidence on the effects of healthcare interventions. The policy of updating Cochrane reviews every two years consumes valuable time and resources and may not be appropriate for all reviews. The objective of this study was to examine the effect of updating Cochrane systematic reviews over a four year period. Methods: This descriptive study examined all completed systematic reviews in the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews (CDSR) Issue 2, 1998. The latest version of each of these reviews was then identified in CDSR Issue 2, 2002 and changes in the review were described. For reviews that were updated within this time period and had additional studies, we determined whether their conclusion had changed and if there were factors that were predictive of this change. Results: A total of 377 complete reviews were published in CDSR Issue 2, 1998. In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study. Of these reviews, 254 (70%) were updated. Of these updated reviews, 23 (9%) had a change in conclusion. Both an increase in precision and a change in statistical significance of the primary outcome were predictive of a change in conclusion of the review. Conclusion: The concerns around a lack of updating for some reviews may not be justified considering the small proportion of updated reviews that resulted in a changed conclusion. A priority-setting approach to the updating of Cochrane systematic reviews may be more appropriate than a time-based approach. Updating all reviews as frequently as every two years may not be necessary, however some reviews may need to be updated more often than every two years.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=27744557209&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/1471-2288-5-33

DO - 10.1186/1471-2288-5-33

M3 - Review article

C2 - 16225692

AN - SCOPUS:27744557209

SN - 1471-2288

VL - 5

JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology

JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology

M1 - 33

ER -

Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated?

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this