PDF(Pubmed)
Abstract：
The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance.
A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word.
Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR.
Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.
A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word.
Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR.
Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.
摘要：
目的：实时系统评价（LSR）方法基于对文献的持续监测和不断更新。目前可用的大多数指导文件都涉及这种行为，reporting,出版,和系统评价(SRs)，但不适合LSR本身，并且错过了其他LSR特定的考虑。在这次范围审查中，我们的目标是系统地整理关于如何进行的方法论指导文献，报告,发布,并评估LSR的质量，并确定当前指南中的差距。
方法：使用标准范围审查方法。我们搜索了MEDLINE(Ovid),EMBASE(Ovid),和2021年8月28日的Cochrane图书馆。至于搜索灰色文献，我们从进行证据综合的组织中寻找有关LSR的现有指南和手册.筛查由两名作者在Rayyan独立进行，并且使用Excel中的中试数据提取表格重复进行数据提取。根据四个预定义的类别提取数据，用于(I)进行，(ii)报告，(三)出版,和(Iv)评估LSR。我们通过可视化在MicrosoftWord中创建的概览表来映射结果。
结果：在21篇论文中，在17篇论文中找到了方法论指导，在六篇报告中，在15篇发表的论文中，在两篇评估LSR的论文中。(I)进行LSR的一些确定的关键项目正在确定理由，筛选工具,或重新评估纳入标准。（ii）原始PRISMA清单的确定项目包括报告注册和协议，title,或合成方法。对于（iii）出版，有关于出版物类型和频率或更新触发器的指南，对于(Iv)评估，研究人员发现了对纳入研究的偏倚评估或报告资助的适当使用指南.我们的搜索发现了主要的证据缺口,特别是对某些PRISMA项目的指导，如报告结果，讨论,支持和资助，以及LSR的数据和材料的可用性。
结论：确定了重要的证据空白，以指导如何在LSR中报告和评估其质量。我们的发现被应用于为LSR提供信息和准备PRISMA2020扩展。
方法：使用标准范围审查方法。我们搜索了MEDLINE(Ovid),EMBASE(Ovid),和2021年8月28日的Cochrane图书馆。至于搜索灰色文献，我们从进行证据综合的组织中寻找有关LSR的现有指南和手册.筛查由两名作者在Rayyan独立进行，并且使用Excel中的中试数据提取表格重复进行数据提取。根据四个预定义的类别提取数据，用于(I)进行，(ii)报告，(三)出版,和(Iv)评估LSR。我们通过可视化在MicrosoftWord中创建的概览表来映射结果。
结果：在21篇论文中，在17篇论文中找到了方法论指导，在六篇报告中，在15篇发表的论文中，在两篇评估LSR的论文中。(I)进行LSR的一些确定的关键项目正在确定理由，筛选工具,或重新评估纳入标准。（ii）原始PRISMA清单的确定项目包括报告注册和协议，title,或合成方法。对于（iii）出版，有关于出版物类型和频率或更新触发器的指南，对于(Iv)评估，研究人员发现了对纳入研究的偏倚评估或报告资助的适当使用指南.我们的搜索发现了主要的证据缺口,特别是对某些PRISMA项目的指导，如报告结果，讨论,支持和资助，以及LSR的数据和材料的可用性。
结论：确定了重要的证据空白，以指导如何在LSR中报告和评估其质量。我们的发现被应用于为LSR提供信息和准备PRISMA2020扩展。
