Skip to main content

Table 1 Key characteristics of the living systematic review pilot teams, processes and publication models

From: Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation

Review topica

Anti-coagulation in people with cancer (3 related LSRs)

Fruit and vegetable consumption in children

Delayed antibiotics for respiratory infections

Zika virus and adverse neurological outcomes

Adherence to guidelines in traumatic brain injury

Epidemiology of traumatic brain injury

No. of authors maintaining LSRb

4

2

2

4

2

4

Search or other support

Information specialist to develop and run searches; ongoing LSR methods expert support

Librarian to develop searches only

Information specialist to develop and review searches only; ongoing LSR methods expert support

Direct funding for personnel

Yes (Part-time RA for authors)

Yes (Part-time RA for authors, stipend for editorial group)

No

Yes (Three funded positions [various roles] for authors)

Yes (Authors funded as part of broader work program, plus specific part-time LSR methods expert)

Journal/Editorial Group; Publisher

Cochrane Gynaecological, Neuro-Oncology and Orphan Cancers; Cochrane

Cochrane Heart; Cochrane

Cochrane Acute Respiratory Infections; Cochrane

F1000Research; F1000

Journal of Neurotrauma; Mary Ann Liebert, Inc.

Search frequency

Monthlyc

Daily or monthlyd

Three-monthlye

Technological enablersf

Machine classifier and crowd-sourcing to identify RCTsg

Nil

Automation and machine learning algorithms to identify RCTs, with some data output automationh

Nil

Communicating review status to reader

Monthly statement to reader about review status (i.e. search date, new studies found, update plans) published in the ‘What’s New’ section of the review, via an article amendment

Daily updates (search date, new studies found) via study websitei

3–6 monthly updates, describing results of new evidence found, available as supplementary material in online version of article

Editorial and peer review of status updates

No formal editorial review; no peer review

No formal editorial review; no peer review

Editorial review and copy-editing; no peer review

Process for integration of new evidence (citation/DOI status)

Full re-publication of review, with new citation and DOIj

New version of the review published, with linked citation and DOI (intended)k

Full re-publication of review, or short commentary article, with a new citation and DOI (intended)k

Editorial and peer review of new versions/publications

Standard editorial and peer review processes apply (may qualify for ‘selective’ peer review per Cochrane policy); same peer reviewers approached

Standard editorial and peer review processes apply; same peer reviewers approached (intended)k

Not confirmed (likely standard editorial and peer review processes apply) (intended)k

Trigger for integration of new evidence

When new evidence identified that changes review conclusions (intended)k

Every 4 months (irrespective of impact of new evidence)

When new evidence identified (irrespective of its impact) (intended)k

Every 6 months (irrespective of impact of new evidence) (intended)k

When new evidence identified that changes review conclusions, but no more frequently than yearly (intended)k

  1. DOI digital object identifier, LSR living systematic review, RA research assistant, RCT randomised controlled trial
  2. aEach team produced one LSR unless otherwise stated
  3. bMeaning authors who contributed to the ongoing review tasks associated with maintaining the LSR (this may or may not have included the entire author team who contributed to the ‘baseline’ review)
  4. cElectronic databases ± clinical trials registries all searched monthly, with remaining non-database sources, such as journal hand searching, websites and conference proceedings searched every 6 months
  5. dDaily searches for PubMed, Embase and LILACS databases, with monthly searches for all other sources
  6. eAll sources (including non-database sources) searched at this frequency
  7. f‘Technological enablers’ refers to both computer technology and more efficient models of human contribution to increase the efficiency and sustainability of the systematic review enterprise (adapted from Thomas 2017 J Clin Epi 91:31-37)
  8. gCochrane Crowd is a citizen science platform used to screen titles and abstracts to identify relevant citations (RCT’s) and exclude irrelevant citations. Machine classifiers exclude irrelevant citations automatically by using algorithms to predict how likely a new citation is to be describing a RCT
  9. hSearches in some databases (PubMed, Embase and LILACS) are automated. De-duplication of citations is automated. Machine learning algorithm suggests a decision for inclusion based on title and abstract. All existing predefined tables and figures can be updated by running a script that re-renders these tables and figures
  10. iStudy website is the Zika Open Access Project, available at: https://zika.ispm.unibe.ch/home
  11. jThis process was implemented in one Cochrane Review only (Fruit and vegetable consumption in children). It was the intended process to be used in the remaining Cochrane Reviews but they did not reach the trigger for integration of new evidence, so their reviews were not re-published during the pilot period
  12. k’Intended’ refers to the fact that this was the agreed process and/or trigger for integrating new evidence but that it was not undertaken during the pilot period