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

被引：45

作者：

French S.D. ^{[1
]}

McDonald S. ^{[1
]}

McKenzie J.E. ^{[1
]}

Green S.E. ^{[1
,2
]}

机构：

[1] Australasian Cochrane Centre, Institute of Health Services Research, Monash University, Clayton, Vic. 3168

来源：

BMC Medical Research Methodology | / 5卷 / 1期

关键词：

Cochrane Review; Cochrane Collaboration; Review Author; Cochrane Systematic Review; Change Conclusion;

D O I：

10.1186/1471-2288-5-33

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

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 In Issue 2, 2002, 14 of these reviews were withdrawn and one was split, leaving 362 reviews to examine for the purpose of this study.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. © 2005 French et al; licensee BioMed Central Ltd.

引用

共 11 条

[1]

Chalmers I., Haynes B., Reporting, updating, and correcting systematic reviews of the effects of health care, BMJ, 309, pp. 862-865, (1994)

[2]

Higgins J., Green S., Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions 4.2.5 [updated May 2005], The Cochrane Library, 3, (2005)

[3]

Chapman A., Middleton P., Maddern G., Early updates of systematic reviews - A waste of resources?, Proceedings of the 4th Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Pushing the Boundaries, (2002)

[4]

Hopewell S., Clarke M., Stewart L., Tierney J., Time to publication for results of clinical trials, The Cochrane Database of Methodology Reviews, 3, (2001)

[5]

Higgins J., Prevalence and problems of updated reviews: A survey and discussion, Proceedings of the 2nd Symposium on Systematic Reviews: Beyond the Basics, (1999)

[6]

Koch G., Are Cochrane Reviews updated regularly or not?, Proceedings of the 10th Cochrane Colloquium: 31 July - 3 August 2002

[7]

Higgins J., How should we interpret updated meta-analyses?, Proceedings of the 7th Annual Cochrane Colloquium, (1999)

[8]

Bastian H., Doust J., When does an updated meta-analysis have enough content to justify re-reading?, Proceedings of the XI Cochrane Colloquium: Evidence, Health Care and Culture, (2003)

[9]

Silagy C.A., Middleton P., Hopewell S., Publishing protocols of systematic reviews: Comparing what was done to what was planned, JAMA, 287, pp. 2831-2834, (2002)

[10]

Newcombe R., Interval estimation for the difference between independent proportions: Comparison of eleven methods, Statistics in Medicine, 17, pp. 873-890, (1998)

← 1 2 →