Living systematic review: new inputs and challenges
Open accessAbstract
This is the second article from a collaborative methodological series of biostatistics and clinical epidemiology narrative reviews. This review aims to describe living systematic reviews’ relevance, the considerations that should be taken when producing one, and the challenges proper of this type of review. The living systematic review is a continuous update that maintains a systematic review’s rigor and methodological quality. The living format is appropriate when the review aims to answer a priority question in terms of health decision-making, the existent certainty of the evidence for this question is low or very low, and new evidence will likely appear soon. To carry out a successful living systematic review, researchers should consider different things, such as: having a continuous and automated search, having update criteria, evaluating how to update the meta-analysis and how to perform the editorial process, and publishing in a friendly format, among others. As living systematic reviews are a new proposal, they will likely change in the future to improve their performance, so we will have to keep an eye on its future updates.
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.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
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.
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?
The use of artificial intelligence was not addressed in PRISMA-LSR because it is not restricted to living systematic reviews.
“We did not address the use of artificial intelligence in PRISMA-LSR because it is not restricted to LSRs. 25 26”
From Extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (PRISMA-LSR): checklist and explanation (2024) · cites this paper as [25]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 33 · Cited by 18
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- What Review is Right for You? [accessed 18 Aug 2020]. [Internet]. | Link |
- F1000Research. Open Access Publishing Platform. Beyond a Research Journal. [accessed 26 Jul 2020]. [Internet] | Link |
- Authors
- Vergara-Merino, L., Verdejo, C., Carrasco, C., & Vargas-Peirano, M.
- Affiliations
- University of Valparaíso (CL)
- Venue
- Medwave
- Publisher
- Medwave Estudios Limitada
- Published
- 2020-12-25
- Volume
- 20
- Issue
- 11
- Pages
- e8092-e8092
- ISSN
- 0717-6384 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3114609312
- Cited by
- 18
- References
- 33
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 5 · 2023: 8 · 2022: 1 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 0.52
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- es
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- other-oa
- Locations
- Medwave (publishedVersion, other-oa)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- 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
- living systematic review, automated literature search, editorial process, low-certainty evidence, health decision-making, methodological issues
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Publishing, Meta-Analysis as Topic
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
