Cited by 426Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist

Open access
Garner, Paul, Hopewell, Sally, Chandler, Jackie, MacLehose, Harriet, Schünemann, Holger J, Akl, Elie A, Beyene, Joseph, Chang, Stephanie +19 more·2016·BMJ

Abstract

Updating of systematic reviews is generally more efficient than starting all over again when new evidence emerges, but to date there has been no clear guidance on how to do this. This guidance helps authors of systematic reviews, commissioners, and editors decide when to update a systematic review, and then how to go about updating the review.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.i3507

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • According to Cochrane's recommendations, if a systematic review on this topic exceeds a certain number of years based on its academic value and practical value, it is necessary to update it.

    “In addition, according to Cochrane’s recommendations, if a systematic review on this topic exceeds a certain number of years based on its academic value and practical value, it is also necessary to update it [30, 31].”

    From Acceptance and commitment therapy for patients with chronic pain: A systematic review and meta-analysis on psychological outcomes and quality of life (2024) · cites this paper as [31]

    The ‘Which systematic reviews should be updated and when?’ section (Box 2; page unavailable) says Cochrane prioritises updates using factors such as strategic importance, practicalities and likely impact. But the Abstract (page unavailable) says Cochrane moved away from updating every two years toward updating based on need and priority. The paper does not recommend that a review must be updated once it passes a set number of years. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 4

  1. [8]Higgins J, Green S, Scholten R. Chapter 3. Maintaining reviews: updates, amendments and feedback: Version 5.1.0 (updated March 2011).Cochrane Collaboration, 2011.
  2. [56]International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE). Defining the role of authors and contributors. 2016. www.icmje.org/recommendations/browse/roles-and-responsibilities/defining-the-role-of-authors-and-contributors.html.
  3. [58]Newberry SJ, Shekelle PG, Vaiana M, et al. Reporting the findings of updated systematic reviews of comparative effectiveness: how do users want to view new information? report no 13-EHC093-EF.Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, 2013. 23785728
  4. [59]Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC. Automating risk of bias assessment for clinical trials BCB’14. Proceedings of the 5th ACM conference on Bioinformatics, computational biology, and health informatics. 2014:88-95. http://thirdworld.nl/automating-risk-of-bias-assessment-for-clinical-trials.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Garner, P., Hopewell, S., Chandler, J., MacLehose, H., Schünemann, H. J., Akl, E. A., Beyene, J., Chang, S., Churchill, R., Dearness, K., Guyatt, G., Lefebvre, C., Liles, B., Marshall, R., Martínez García, L., Mavergames, C., Nasser, M., Qaseem, A., Sampson, M., Soares-Weiser, K., Takwoingi, Y., Thabane, L., Trivella, M., Tugwell, P., Welsh, E., Wilson, E. C., & (PUGs), P. F. U. G. F. S. R.
Affiliations
  • Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine (GB)
  • University of Oxford (GB)
  • Cochrane (GB)
  • Cochrane Canada (CA)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US)
  • University of York (GB)
  • Kaiser Permanente (US)
  • Peninsula College of Medicine and Dentistry (GB)
  • American College of Physicians (US)
  • Children's Hospital of Eastern Ontario (CA)
  • University of Birmingham (GB)
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • St George's, University of London (GB)
  • University of Cambridge (GB)
Corresponding author
Garner, Paul
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-07-20
Volume
354
Pages
i3507
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2489347314
Cited by
426
References
57
Citations by year
2026: 30 · 2025: 33 · 2024: 54 · 2023: 57 · 2022: 53 · 2021: 53 · 2020: 52 · 2019: 37 · 2018: 34 · 2017: 18 · 2016: 3 · 2015: 2
FWCI
11.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • LSTM Online Archive (Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine) (acceptedVersion)
  • St George's Online Research Archive (St George's University of London) (acceptedVersion)
  • UEA Digital Repository (University of East Anglia) (acceptedVersion, cc-by)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
  • PEARL (University of Plymouth) (submittedVersion)
  • University of Birmingham Research Portal (University of Birmingham) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (University of Cambridge) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • Apollo (cc-by)
Funders
  • U.S. Department of Health and Human Services
  • Australian Government
  • Cancer Research UK (16895)
  • Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
systematic review updating, new evidence, consensus recommendations, checklists, evidence synthesis
MeSH terms
Canada, Publishing, Review Literature as Topic, Guidelines as Topic, Advisory Committees, Checklist

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review