How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis.

نویسندگان

  • Kaveh G Shojania
  • Margaret Sampson
  • Mohammed T Ansari
  • Jun Ji
  • Steve Doucette
  • David Moher
چکیده

BACKGROUND Systematic reviews are often advocated as the best source of evidence to guide clinical decisions and health care policy, yet we know little about the extent to which they require updating. OBJECTIVE To estimate the average time to changes in evidence that are sufficiently important to warrant updating systematic reviews. DESIGN Survival analysis of 100 quantitative systematic reviews. SAMPLE Systematic reviews published from 1995 to 2005 and indexed in ACP Journal Club. Eligible reviews evaluated a specific drug or class of drug, device, or procedure and included only randomized or quasi-randomized, controlled trials. MEASUREMENTS Quantitative signals for updating were changes in statistical significance or relative changes in effect magnitude of at least 50% involving 1 of the primary outcomes of the original systematic review or any mortality outcome. Qualitative signals included substantial differences in characterizations of effectiveness, new information about harm, and caveats about the previously reported findings that would affect clinical decision making. RESULTS The cohort of 100 systematic reviews included a median of 13 studies and 2663 participants per review. A qualitative or quantitative signal for updating occurred for 57% of reviews (95% CI, 47% to 67%). Median duration of survival free of a signal for updating was 5.5 years (CI, 4.6 to 7.6 years). However, a signal occurred within 2 years for 23% of reviews and within 1 year for 15%. In 7%, a signal had already occurred at the time of publication. Only 4% of reviews had a signal within 1 year of the end of the reported search period; 11% had a signal within 2 years of the search. Shorter survival was associated with cardiovascular topics (hazard ratio, 2.70 [CI, 1.36 to 5.34]) and heterogeneity in the original review (hazard ratio, 2.15 [CI, 1.12 to 4.11]). LIMITATION Judgments of the need for updating were made without involving content experts. CONCLUSION In a cohort of high-quality systematic reviews directly relevant to clinical practice, signals for updating occurred frequently and within a relatively short time.

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

منابع مشابه

پریزما؛ موارد ترجیحی در گزارش مقالات مروری منظم و فراتحلیل

Today, understanding of systematic reviews and meta-analyses and their practical use is essential for who concerned with society's health. Most of the medical reports invoked to these reviews and statements and it is necessary for scientific experts to be familiar with their performing rules and the way of their writing. The basic sciences specialists and clinical professionals study them to ...

متن کامل

Introducing systematic reviews

Research can be understood as systematic investigation to develop theories, establish evidence and solve problems. We can either undertake new research or we can learn from what others have already studied. How, then, do we go about finding out what has already been studied, how it has been studied, and what this research has found out? A common method is to undertake a review of the research l...

متن کامل

Systematic reviews: time to address clinical and policy relevance as well as methodological rigor.

Well As Methodological Rigor Compared with other study designs, well-done randomized trials provide the most valid estimate of the benefits of health interventions because they minimize bias. Systematic reviews of randomized trials identify all studies that have addressed a particular question, and metaanalyses combine the results by using methods that minimize bias (1). Many consider systemati...

متن کامل

Systematic reviews as a tool for planning and interpreting trials.

BACKGROUND Systematic reviews followed by a meta-analysis are carried out in medical research to combine the results of two or more related studies. Stroke trials have struggled to show beneficial effects and meta-analysis should be used more widely throughout the research process to either speed up the development of useful interventions, or halt more quickly research with hazardous or ineffec...

متن کامل

A PRISMA assessment of reporting the quality of published dental systematic reviews in Iran, up to 2017

BACKGROUND AND AIM: Proper scientific reporting is necessary to ensure correct interpretation of study results by readers. Systematic reviews (SRs) are of critical importance in evidence-based dentistry. This study assessed the reporting quality of published dental SRs in Iran.METHODS: The PubMed and ISI electronic databases were searched to collect published Iranian dental SRs up to the end of...

متن کامل

ذخیره در منابع من


  با ذخیره ی این منبع در منابع من، دسترسی به آن را برای استفاده های بعدی آسان تر کنید

برای دانلود متن کامل این مقاله و بیش از 32 میلیون مقاله دیگر ابتدا ثبت نام کنید

ثبت نام

اگر عضو سایت هستید لطفا وارد حساب کاربری خود شوید

عنوان ژورنال:
  • Annals of internal medicine

دوره 147 4  شماره 

صفحات  -

تاریخ انتشار 2007