Living systematic reviews at
            <i>The BMJ</i>

Macdonald, Helen; Loder, Elizabeth; Abbasi, Kamran

doi:10.1136/bmj.m2925

Cited by 25 publications

(28 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In parallel to this, novel solid evidence from novel umbrella reviews should steadily update this type of study (in a way similar to living systematic review [222]), which, in turn, could offer periodic updates for policy formulation (for an example on MS, see [223]). In doing so, we propose that "living" systematic reviews, defined as systematic reviews the content of which is updated in a continuous manner by including the most up-to-date evidence once the latter is available [224], should be expanded beyond their current focus on accelerated research areas.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-genetic risk and protective factors and biomarkers for neurological disorders: a meta-umbrella systematic review of umbrella reviews

Mentis

Dardiotis

Efthymiou

et al. 2021

BMC Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The etiologies of chronic neurological diseases, which heavily contribute to global disease burden, remain far from elucidated. Despite available umbrella reviews on single contributing factors or diseases, no study has systematically captured non-purely genetic risk and/or protective factors for chronic neurological diseases. Methods We performed a systematic analysis of umbrella reviews (meta-umbrella) published until September 20th, 2018, using broad search terms in MEDLINE, SCOPUS, Web of Science, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature, ProQuest Dissertations & Theses, JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, DARE, and PROSPERO. The PRISMA guidelines were followed for this study. Reference lists of the identified umbrella reviews were also screened, and the methodological details were assessed using the AMSTAR tool. For each non-purely genetic factor association, random effects summary effect size, 95% confidence and prediction intervals, and significance and heterogeneity levels facilitated the assessment of the credibility of the epidemiological evidence identified. Results We identified 2797 potentially relevant reviews, and 14 umbrella reviews (203 unique meta-analyses) were eligible. The median number of primary studies per meta-analysis was 7 (interquartile range (IQR) 7) and that of participants was 8873 (IQR 36,394). The search yielded 115 distinctly named non-genetic risk and protective factors with a significant association, with various strengths of evidence. Mediterranean diet was associated with lower risk of dementia, Alzheimer disease (AD), cognitive impairment, stroke, and neurodegenerative diseases in general. In Parkinson disease (PD) and AD/dementia, coffee consumption, and physical activity were protective factors. Low serum uric acid levels were associated with increased risk of PD. Smoking was associated with elevated risk of multiple sclerosis and dementia but lower risk of PD, while hypertension was associated with lower risk of PD but higher risk of dementia. Chronic occupational exposure to lead was associated with higher risk of amyotrophic lateral sclerosis. Late-life depression was associated with higher risk of AD and any form of dementia. Conclusions We identified several non-genetic risk and protective factors for various neurological diseases relevant to preventive clinical neurology, health policy, and lifestyle counseling. Our findings could offer new perspectives in secondary research (meta-research).

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Non-genetic risk and protective factors and biomarkers for neurological disorders: a meta-umbrella systematic review of umbrella reviews

Mentis

Dardiotis

Efthymiou

et al. 2021

BMC Med

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…cochr ane.org) or living systematic reviews. 2 But do these reasons render the conclusion of "an epidemic of redundant meta-analyses" void? No.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Another more practical reason for more than one publication on a similar topic can be that this topic lies in multiple clinical domains, so publishing in different journals each catering those fields with their own focus might be prudent, perhaps even desirable. Also, with the arrival of additional data meta‐analyses can or perhaps even should be updated, a practice reminiscent of the Cochrane approach (http://www.cochrane.org) or living systematic reviews 2 . But do these reasons render the conclusion of “an epidemic of redundant meta‐analyses” void?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This practice, which we will dub “science for publications” is one of the root causes of what has become known as “research waste,” research efforts that have little or no added scientific value. Given the constraints in time and resources in academic medicine, writing, publishing, and reading research waste has serious consequences 2 . So what can we do to prevent research waste, especially originating from double work?…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Also, with the arrival of additional data meta‐analyses can or perhaps even should be updated, a practice reminiscent of the Cochrane approach ( www.cochrane.org ) or living systematic reviews. 2 But do these reasons render the conclusion of “an epidemic of redundant meta‐analyses” void? No.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Publishing for science or science for publications? The role of open science to reduce research waste

Siegerink

Rosendaal

2021

Journal of Thrombosis and Haemostasis

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Methods for conducting a living evidence profile on mpox: An evidence map of the literature

Pussegoda,

Corrin,

Baumeister

et al. 2024

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundIn May of 2022, several cases of mpox were identified in multiple nonendemic countries and on July 23, 2022 the World Health Organization declared mpox a Public Health Emergency of International Concern. During the first six months of the outbreak there was an urgent need to have up‐to‐date synthesized evidence on mpox to inform public health decision‐making. At this point, evidence is changing too quickly for traditional evidence synthesis methods, as systematic reviews were out‐of‐date before publication. This paper describes the framework developed to manage and maintain a living evidence profile (LEP) to systematically identify, classify and synthesize evidence on a broad range of mpox topics at a rapid pace as the outbreak unfolded.MethodsThe LEP framework was based on principles of evidence synthesis, risk assessment, priority epidemiological parameters for infectious disease modeling and consultation with experts. The framework consisted of a systematic search conducted twice weekly; study selection; categorization into pre‐determined foci and data extraction; integration and synthesis of evidence; internal peer‐review and dissemination to stakeholders.ResultsBetween April 14 and December 15, 2022, 2287 citations were identified, 687 were primary research studies or surveillance reports on the 2022 mpox outbreak and 496 were included in the final LEP. Each study was mapped to one of 32 foci and evidence was narratively synthesized. From June to December 2022, 23 LEPs were produced (approximately weekly) along with a searchable database of extracted data of the mpox literature. They were disseminated globally to public health researchers and decision‐makers to inform public health response efforts.ConclusionsThe LEP framework is applicable to other public health emergencies when a rapid synthesis cycle is required because the evidence is evolving quickly. This efficient methodology for creating up‐to‐date summaries of the current evidence during the first few months of an outbreak or emergency supports public health decision‐making and response activities.

show abstract

Living systematic reviews at The BMJ

Cited by 25 publications

References 6 publications

Non-genetic risk and protective factors and biomarkers for neurological disorders: a meta-umbrella systematic review of umbrella reviews

Non-genetic risk and protective factors and biomarkers for neurological disorders: a meta-umbrella systematic review of umbrella reviews

Publishing for science or science for publications? The role of open science to reduce research waste

Methods for conducting a living evidence profile on mpox: An evidence map of the literature

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About