Skip to main content
Download PDF
Download ePub
  • Systematic review
  • Open access
  • Published:

A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making

Implementation Science volume 19, Article number: 67 (2024) Cite this article

Abstract

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact in the global research production and has also increased research waste. Living evidence syntheses (LESs) seek to regularly update a body of evidence addressing a specific question. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the production and dissemination of LESs emerged as a cornerstone of the evidence infrastructure. This critical interpretive synthesis answers the questions: What constitutes an LES to support decision-making?; when should one be produced, updated, and discontinued?; and how should one be disseminated?

Methods

Searches included the Cochrane Library, EMBASE (Ovid), Health Systems Evidence, MEDLINE (Ovid), PubMed, and Web of Science up to 23 April 2024 and included articles that provide any insights on addressing the compass questions on LESs. Articles were selected and appraised, and their insights extracted. An interpretive and iterative coding process was used to identify relevant thematic categories and create a conceptual framework.

Results

Among the 16,630 non-duplicate records identified, 208 publications proved eligible. Most were non-empirical articles, followed by actual LESs. Approximately one in three articles were published in response to the COVID-19 pandemic. The conceptual framework addresses six thematic categories: (1) what is an LES; (2) what methodological approaches facilitate LESs production; (3) when to produce an LES; (4) when to update an LES; (5) how to make available the findings of an LES; and (6) when to discontinue LES updates.

Conclusion

LESs can play a critical role in reducing research waste and ensuring alignment with advisory and decision-making processes. This critical interpretive synthesis provides relevant insights on how to better organize the global evidence architecture to support their production.

Trial registration

PROSPERO registration: CRD42021241875.

Peer Review reports

Background

The COVID-19 pandemic has had an unprecedented impact on the global population. The World Health Organization (WHO) shows that millions of people died since the start of the pandemic, which is confirmed by recent estimates of excess mortality reported by several countries [1]. The COVID-19 pandemic is now seen as the global health event with the greatest consequences to the world’s health in the last century.

The COVID-19 pandemic not only stressed public-health systems; it also stressed the existing research infrastructure. Before the pandemic, researchers had shown a significant increase in research outputs, which had escalated to unprecedented levels, with large variability in value and coordination among evidence producers [2]. Research output accelerated further during the COVID-19 pandemic [3], creating even bigger challenges with research waste on the one hand and significant gaps from the perspective of decision-makers on the other hand.

In this context, decision-makers have faced difficulties in finding and using the best available research evidence to address the specific challenges they face. Leaving aside the complexity of the issues that the COVID-19 pandemic brought to the fore, decision-makers faced additional complexity in understanding and interpreting the evidence that the COVID-19 pandemic elicited [4].

Living evidence syntheses (LESs) are an approach to regularly updating a body of evidence addressing a specific question. LESs were first described in the literature in 2017 [5], and began being produced by Cochrane [6] and other evidence producers before the COVID-19 pandemic started. Complementary to LESs, living guidelines have also been developed and piloted as a valuable approach to provide recommendations. During the pandemic, LESs that produced regularly updated summaries of what was known played an important role in informing decisions. Thus, the production, dissemination, and use of LESs are now considered a key cornerstone of the global evidence architecture [7]. Given the recency of the prominence of LESs, each of these dimensions requires greater conceptual clarity.

We began this synthesis by using a compass question worded as follow: “What, when and why to produce and disseminate living evidence syntheses for decision-making?” (registered in the PROSPERO record). A compass question can, however, be iteratively adjusted as greater conceptual clarity is gained [8]. The final version of the compass question is as follows: “What constitutes an LES to support decision-making? When should one be produced, updated and discontinued, with what methodological support produced and updated, and how should one be disseminated?”.

Methods

The protocol of this critical interpretive synthesis has been published in PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/display_record.php?ID=CRD42021241875) and key details are summarized below. Critical interpretive syntheses are a type of evidence synthesis in which, by doing a critical and interpretive qualitative analysis from the literature, its main objective is to create a conceptual framework to understand a phenomenon of interest [8].

Search methods

To identify potentially relevant documents, the following bibliographic databases were searched:

  • Cochrane Library, including CENTRAL (inception to 23 April 2024)

  • Health Systems Evidence (inception to 23 April 2024)

  • MEDLINE and EMBASE using Ovid (inception to 23 April 2024)

  • PubMed (inception to 23 April 2024)

  • Web of Science (inception to 23 April 2024).

The electronic database search was supplemented by examining the references of included articles, and evidence syntheses that were captured in the screening process. Additional file 1 describes the search strategies that were used in each database.

Study selection

By identifying or examining relationships among relevant considerations, eligible articles provided insights on the production or dissemination of LESs for decision-making. (i.e., eligible articles did not have to be LESs). No restrictions on study design, language, publication type or publication date were applied.

Articles were excluded if they:

  • were not LESs, and did not provide insights on LESs;

  • were LESs but provide no insights on the production or dissemination of them;

  • provide insights but are restricted to evidence-to-decision aspects of living guidelines (whereas we would include papers providing insights applicable to both living guidelines and LESs).

Duplicates were removed using EndNote® and Covidence®. Two members of the research team independently screened all titles and, abstracts. Then, two independent reviewers screened all full texts, resolving disagreements by a third reviewer; reviewers used Covidence® to conduct this process.

Data extraction

One reviewer extracted the following characteristics from the included articles:

  • lead author, month, and year of publication, and citation;

  • type of article (LES as declared by the authors; non-LES; empirical article, excluding evidence syntheses; non-empirical article (e.g., commentary or editorial));

  • study design and geographical scope for an empirical study, as reported by the authors;

  • sector where the article is relevant (following the taxonomy used by the COVID-END (COVID-END was a time-limited network of groups supporting some type of evidence production and uses to work together on how to better inform COVID-19 decision-making) inventory of evidence syntheses [9]: clinical management; public-health measures; health-system arrangements; economic and social responses)

  • insights addressing the compass question and its components;

  • whether or not the article was produced in the context of the COVID-19 pandemic.

Studies with more than one publication were managed as follows:

  • if a published and a pre-print version was available, the peer-reviewed version of the article was considered for extraction;

  • if a full paper was linked to a conference abstract that was captured by a search strategy, the full paper was considered for extraction;

  • if a published protocol of an evidence synthesis was available, both the protocol and the published version were considered for extraction;

  • if updates of an LESs were available, the latest update was considered for extraction and, if any additional insights were found in older updates, they too were considered for extraction.

A data extraction template was first piloted by two authors, and the full data-extraction process was conducted in Microsoft Excel®.

Quality assessment

Empirical primary studies and evidence syntheses were appraised for their methodological limitations. For primary studies, the mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) [10] was used, as it allowed appraisal of a broad range of empirical studies. A single reviewer conducted this appraisal.

Evidence syntheses were evaluated using the AMSTAR instrument [11]. Two reviewers independently conducted this appraisal, discussing any potential conflicts to reach a consensus. When available, the AMSTAR score posted in the COVID-END Inventory, Health Systems Evidence or Social Systems Evidence was used.

Protocols of studies actively underway were not appraised for their methodological limitations.

Data synthesis

Based on the information collected in the data extraction form, each article was classified according to its contributions to addressing the compass question, and whether or not it provided insights about the production and/or dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making.

Based on all the articles considered as eligible, a conceptual framework was created by conducting a narrative synthesis using a coding strategy from the insights coming from the included documents. This coding was conducted in an interpretive and iterative way, starting by the articles classified as highly relevant in the data-extraction stage. Later, insights from articles in each of the draft thematic categories were incorporated in the framework.

To complement the above, a qualitative analysis was conducted based on discussions that were originated in a listserv that is supported by COVID-END, (two listserv discussions with comments from 15 March until 31 March 2021 with approximately 15 contributions), about the role of living reviews in decision-making. These discussions addressed approaches on how to understand LESs, followed by a question on when updates to an LES should be discontinued.

The insights collected from the literature and the listserv discussion are visually presented in a conceptual framework and are detailed in a set of tables describing the insights collected from the thematic categories that emerged from these data sources.

Living evidence synthesis strategy

This is a living critical interpretive synthesis. The existing criteria for when a living evidence synthesis is needed [5] were met for this critical interpretive synthesis. First, the issue of living evidence syntheses is clearly an ongoing priority for decision-making. Secondly, while the framework included here is comprehensive, there might be new literature that could lead to adjustments to specific thematic categories, such as new methodological ways to support the production of living evidence syntheses. Finally, at the time of this review, several other living evidence syntheses are ongoing, which may lead to changes in the findings from this critical interpretive synthesis.

The search strategies will be continuously updated every 12 months to check for any potential new articles, and this synthesis will be updated at least three times after its first publication. Insights gained to that point will inform the timing of subsequent updates.

Results

Search results

Among the 22,488 records found, 16,630 non-duplicated abstracts were screened, and 627 full texts were reviewed for a final set of 184 studies described in 281 publications (many of which were updates of LESs). To fill gaps in the conceptual framework, an additional 24 articles were added using a purposive sampling approach from references of the existing articles, which resulted in 208 included articles. See Fig. 1 for the PRISMA flow diagram of the synthesis. Additional file 2 provides a list of the studies excluded in the final stage, along with the reasons for exclusions.

Fig. 1
figure 1

PRISMA diagram showing the review process for selecting the included studies

Full size image

Sixteen conference abstracts proved relevant, but full-text versions of the papers proved unavailable [12,13,14,15,16,17,18,19,20,21,22,23,24,25,26,27]; they were included and extracted in their abstract form.

Description of studies

Table 1 describes the characteristics of the included studies. The majority of articles that provided insights for this synthesis were non-empirical articles, followed by evidence syntheses (living or not). Only a small number of articles were empirical studies that were not evidence syntheses, and 59 (28%) of all studies included were produced in response to the COVID-19 pandemic.

Table 1 Description of the included studies
Full size table

In terms of thematic focus, most of the articles did not have a particular focus, followed by articles addressing clinical management issues, and then those focused on public-health measures. Nine articles addressed health-system arrangements and economic and social responses. Finally, thematic categories were relatively equally served in terms of the number of articles, with the exception being when to discontinue updates to an existing LES, an issue addressed by only 22 articles (11%).

Among the small number of empirical studies, the study designs varied (mixed-method, qualitative, and quantitative); one study was conducted in each of Australia [28], Italy [29], and the United States [30], and the fourth was conducted in both Australia and Canada [31], while the remainder did not have a specific geographical scope. Of the 208 articles, 121 were classified as highly relevant mainly based on the importance of their contributions to creating the conceptual framework.

The quality of the evidence syntheses was moderate to high; most were moderate quality in the AMSTAR instrument (4 to 7). The limited number of empirical primary studies showed a wide variation in terms of their methodological limitations but they fill most of the criteria from MMAT. Additional file 3 shows the detail of the AMSTAR scores for evidence syntheses, and methodological limitations for empirical primary studies using the MMAT.

Results of the coding

Six thematic categories were identified from the data sources within which there were 21 different sub-themes. With the exception of the sub-theme ‘labelling living’ in the thematic category 1 that emerged only from the listserv discussion, the remainder of the thematic categories and sub-themes emerged from both the literature and the listserv discussion.

In conducting the critical analysis, two specific topics emerged as potential controversies or gaps in the literature. First, the definition of what should be considered an update (thematic category 1, sub-theme 2. Updates) was addressed by multiple ideas. Secondly, three specific gaps were found in the critical analysis, and they were filled by purposively sampled literature: (1) when an update was needed, which was filled by literature about when a non-living evidence synthesis needs to be updated; (2) when an issue was a priority for decision-making, which was filled by the agenda setting literature; and (3) the applicability of the findings of a living evidence synthesis for different contexts and issues. Complementary, Table 2 explains how each sub-theme relates to each thematic category, as well as the reference of the papers contributing to each thematic category. Additional file 4 provides a detailed description of how each article contributed to each thematic category and sub-theme, while Additional file 5 provides a more thorough description of each one of the thematic categories.

Table 2 Description of the thematic categories and sub-themes that emerged from the literature
Full size table

The six thematic categories include 21 sub-themes. In the first thematic category, the definition of LES is separated into what constitutes a living synthesis, what constitutes an update, and the meaning of the label “living”. The second thematic category explains the methods that can be used to assess the need for an LES, how to manage a team conducting an LES, and the methods to facilitate the production of an LES. The third and fourth thematic categories include ‘triggers’ to look for when deciding to produce and update an LES, which are structured into demand-side, supply-side, and other type of triggers. The fifth thematic category describes the platforms and format that an LES can use to disseminate its findings. It also describes the potential users to whom the findings of an LES would be disseminated, as well as ways to speed-up the dissemination of LESs. Finally, the sixth thematic category include ‘triggers’ to look for when deciding to discontinue updates of an LES.

Conceptual framework

Figure 2 shows the conceptual framework created from the thematic categories found in this critical interpretive synthesis. It displays the three main sections of the cycle of an LES (producing, maintaining/updating, and discontinuing updates), which are described in thematic categories 3, 4 and 6. These three sections are arranged around a time axis from left to right, while this axis divides the supply triggers coming from the upper part of the diagram from the demand triggers coming from its lower part.

Fig. 2
figure 2

Conceptual framework showing demand and supply triggers in three main stages of living evidence syntheses

Full size image

The demand side is mainly driven by how issues are sitting on the decision agenda, using the Kingdon model of agenda setting, This framework facilitates the understanding of why issues are promoted to the decision agenda in a given time, by coupling the three main streams: the problems stream (i.e., why the problem come to attention), the policies stream (a potential viable solution) and the politics stream (political climate that could be conducive) [30].

This conceptual framework for producing and making available the findings of an LES acknowledges that findings of a given synthesis could also contribute to a rise in attention to an issue, creating a type of feedback. Also, it shows that the conception of an update could come not only from adding new evidence, but also any changes in the underlying structure of an existing synthesis (e.g., eligibility criteria, presentation details, etc.). Additionally, the frequency of updates could be tailored or established in advance, but a negotiation with potential decision-makers and evidence intermediaries is also flagged as important insight. If updating frequently is critical, creating a credible commitment with knowledge users in terms of when to expect new updates is also important. Finally, one important insight gathered from the literature is that the decision of when to start an LES could be similar to the decision regarding when to update one, since every LES will start with a ‘baseline’ synthesis that will be updated regularly. The framework shows a cycle in terms of the need to assess when to update an LES.

Discussion

Principal findings

This critical interpretive synthesis considered a broad literature and a series of posts included in a listserv discussion to create a conceptual framework to understand what LESs are, and when and how to produce and disseminate them. The resulting framework (Fig. 2) structured the LES process in three main ‘buckets’: starting an LES, maintaining or updating an LES, and deciding to discontinue updates. It also highlights the main triggers that could inform each stage from the demand and supply sides. While the triggers from the demand side are mainly associated with whether an issue is a priority for decision-making, the triggers from the supply side are associated with the likelihood that the existing body of evidence for a given question might change.

The six thematic categories included 21 sub-themes that were included as part of the analysis reflecting the complexity and the number of different aspects involved in the production and dissemination of LESs. Considering that the first paper on LESs was only published in 2017 [5], this area has grown substantially in complexity in a short period of time. It has also been powered by the COVID-19 pandemic, which established LESs as a key cornerstone of the global evidence architecture [7].

Findings in relation to other studies

This is the first paper creating a conceptual framework to support the production and dissemination of LESs. While the first paper on LESs was published a number of years ago [5], several efforts to advance thinking and practice of LESs have been undertaken since then, by several evidence producers, including the Cochrane Collaboration [6]. During the COVID-19 pandemic, the number of LESs grew exponentially [3], with most being efforts that could be relied on in terms of their frequency of regular updates, some of them never making it beyond the publication of a protocol to the publication of their first version. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the importance of LESs for decision-making as contexts and issues constantly evolved, as did evidence production.

Strengths and limitations

This paper has four important strengths. First, although the main body of literature came from the health sector, it provides a conceptual framework that is relevant to a variety of decision-makers in different sectors. Secondly, it is designed to be a living CIS that will be updated as soon as new literature provides new insights, keeping the conceptual framework up-to-date. This is particularly relevant as it is expected that as the LESs addressing COVID-19 are discontinued, they may surface new insights from authors to inform the framework produced in this synthesis. Thirdly, the data sources included were exhaustive, using a comprehensive search of the literature combined with an analysis of dedicated insights on the role of LESs for decision-making. Finally, the paper incorporates other conceptual frameworks where relevant (e.g., agenda setting processes), providing a more comprehensive understanding of the complex processes addressed.

This article has limitations. First, this paper focused on the production and dissemination of the findings of an LES. Although the potential uses of LESs for decision-making were partially addressed by considering the demand-side triggers to gather emerging insights from the literature, these were beyond the scope of this paper. Secondly, we mainly found literature that was not empirical. No rigorous evaluations were available that could address the impact of LESs on decision-making. Finally, some parts of the evidence synthesis process were conducted by using only a single reviewer (i.e., data extraction and assessing the methodological limitations of the included articles).

Implications for policy and practice

This framework can inform decision-makers, evidence intermediaries and evidence producers regarding the role that LESs can play in decision-making processes. On the one hand, LESs can inform decision-makers as well as considerations related to commissioning and setting expectations for LES teams. On the other hand, it can help evidence intermediaries and producers with demand-side considerations related to conducting, updating, or discontinuing updates to an LES, as well as what approaches they can use to facilitate this work.

Evidence producers can use this framework to inform their efforts regarding when to produce an LES. This could help to reduce research waste by facilitating coordination among evidence producers to encourage the production of a suite of high-quality living evidence syntheses on priority topics, as opposed to multiple (sometimes duplicate) initiatives conducting non-living evidence syntheses. However, incentives from funders and academic publications might act as a barrier to reach this goal.

When conducting a living evidence synthesis, evidence producers should transparently report and adhere to their plans regarding update frequencies and how they are planning to be updated. This will help to focus their research funding efforts on topics that would produce sound and relevant LESs.

Additionally, this framework can also be used to consider whether living datasets could be served by this analysis. Hence, the role of living evidence might not necessarily be at the level of syntheses or documents, but also extend to other forms of evidence.

Implications for future research

Future research efforts should address how LESs could be better structured and organized by evidence producers, intermediaries, and decision-makers to better coordinate their actions to facilitate the effective uses of different types of evidence in the decision-making process. Empirical studies that ask decision-makers, evidence intermediaries and evidence producers about how to advance the usefulness of this framework could provide additional insights by conducting prioritizing exercises (e.g., Delphi studies) or ones that provide qualitative insights (e.g., case study) to test to support evidence producers and intermediaries on when to produce, update and discontinue LESs.

Conclusion

This critical interpretive synthesis provides a conceptual framework to better display the different elements on how to understand what LESs are, and when and how to produce and disseminate them. Six thematic categories emerged from the literature, highlighting definitions and methods to produce an LES, triggers from the demand and supply side to initiate production, update and discontinue updating LESs, and insights into how to make available findings of an LES. This framework can inform decision-makers, evidence intermediaries and evidence producers to clarify the role that LESs can play in decision-making processes. Future research could advance the usefulness of this framework by testing it and putting it into practice to facilitate the use of LESs in decision-making processes.

Availability of data and materials

All data generated or analysed during this study are included in this published article [and its supplementary information files].

Abbreviations

CIS:

Critical interpretive synthesis

LES:

Living evidence synthesis

References

  1. World Health Organization. WHO Coronavirus (COVID-19) Dashboard. 2021. Available from:  https://covid19.who.int/.

    Google Scholar 

  2. Ioannidis JPA. The Mass Production of Redundant, Misleading, and Conflicted Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. The Milbank Q. 2016;94:485–514.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kambhampati SBS, Vaishya R, Vaish A. Unprecedented surge in publications related to COVID-19 in the first three months of pandemic: a bibliometric analytic report. J Clin Orthop Trauma. 2020;11:S304–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  4. Vickery J, Atkinson P, Lin L, Rubin O, Upshur R, Yeoh E-K, et al. Challenges to evidence-informed decision-making in the context of pandemics: qualitative study of COVID-19 policy advisor perspectives. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7:e008268–e008268.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Elliott JH, Synnot A, Turner T, Simmonds M, Akl EA, McDonald S, et al. Living systematic review: 1. Introduction-the why, what, when, and how. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:23–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. The Cochrane Collaboration. Living systematic reviews. Available from: https://community.cochrane.org/review-production/production-resources/living-systematic-reviews. Accessed 12 July 2022.

  7. Pearson H. How COVID broke the evidence pipeline. Nature. 2021;593:182–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Dixon-Woods M, Cavers D, Agarwal S, Annandale E, Arthur A, Harvey J, et al. Conducting a critical interpretive synthesis of the literature on access to healthcare by vulnerable groups. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:35–35.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  9. Lavis JN. COVID-END taxonomy of public-health measures, clinical management of COVID-19, health-system arrangements, and economic and social responses. 2021; Available from: https://www.mcmasterforum.org/docs/default-source/resources/resources_covid-taxonomy.pdf?sfvrsn=2b288648_5

  10. Hong QN, Pluye P, Fabregues S, Bartlett G, Boardman F, Cargo M, et al. Mixed methods appraisal tool (MMAT) version 2018. 2018; Available from: http://mixedmethodsappraisaltoolpublic.pbworks.com/w/file/fetch/127916259/MMAT_2018_criteria-manual_2018-08-01_ENG.pdf

  11. Shea BJ, Grimshaw JM, Wells GA, Boers M, Andersson N, Hamel C, et al. Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10–10.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  12. Britt A, Yang E, Crittenden D, Bhangdia T, Nye B, Duffy E-C, et al. Abstract P04: Effects of COVID-19 treatments on cancer: a machine learning approach to synthesize clinical evidence at scale. Clin Cancer Res. 2021;27:P04–P04.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  13. Hearnden J, Dudoit K, Kim E, Tremblay G, Forsythe A. PMU118 use of computer-assisted methods to realize the concept of a living systematic review via an online platform. Value Health. 2019;22:S729.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  14. Riaz IB, Siddiqi R, Asghar N, Cathcart-Rake EJ, Herasevich V, Montori V, et al. Living systematic reviews: a novel mechanism for improving efficiency and quality of evidence synthesis in oncology. JCO. 2019;37:241–241.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  15. Richard ME, Harricharan S, Anna F. PCN291 Always up-to-Date Systematic Literature Reviews (SLRS) NOW a Reality - an Example in NEWLY Diagnosed ACUTE Myeloid Leukemia (ND AML) and Relapsed/Refractory ACUTE Lymphoblastic Leukemia (RR ALL). Value Health. 2020;23:S473.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  16. Siqueira I, Clark E, Neil-Sztramko S, Belita E, Dobbins M. Informing policy on school and daycare operations during COVID-19 with a living rapid evidence review. European Journal of Public Health. 2021;31:ckab164.593.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  17. Carr E, Gregg E, McCool R, Sanderson A, Wilson K. The Proliferation of Living Systematic Reviews (LSRS) - Dead on Arrival? A Review of LSR Methodology. Value in Health. 2022;25:S491.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  18. Thompson JC, Manalastas E, Hombali A, Scott DA. MSR120 to include an error once may be regarded as a misfortune, to include it again looks like carelessness. Value Health. 2022;25:S373.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  19. He C, Chen Z, Kwon C, Musat M, Liu J, Sarri G, et al. HTA199 the reality of living systematic literature reviews to support timely healthcare decisions: a case study in relapsed/Refractory Multiple Myeloma. Value Health. 2022;25:S335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  20. Hair K, Macleod M, Bannach-Brown A, Bahor Z, Currie G, Liao J, et al. “Living” evidence frameworks for in vivo animal research: towards translational evidence-based medicine. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2022;27:A17.

    Google Scholar 

  21. Golob MM, Livingstone-Banks J. toward a living model for health technology assessments. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2022;27:A9–10.

    Google Scholar 

  22. Di Tanna GL, Sunjaya AP, Santos JA, Bhaumik S, Grant R. living systematic reviews (LSR) and prospective meta analysis (PMA): a call-of duty for bayesian analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7:A14–5.

    Google Scholar 

  23. Sauca M, Tarchand R, Kallmes K. living systematic review (LSR) in health technology assessment (HTA): current guidance, methods, and challenges. Value Health. 2023;26:S390–S390.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Diamond M, Valbuena-Fajardo J, Appiah K, Rizzo M. examining guidance and key principles for conducting living systematic reviews: a methods review. Value Health. 2023;26:S398–S398.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  25. ACM, Kusa W, Knoth P, Hanbury A. CRUISE-Screening: Living Literature Reviews Toolbox. 2023. p. 5071–5.

    Google Scholar 

  26. Liu J, Buer A, Rizzo M, Sarri G, Forsythe A. the data lifecycle: towards a standardized relational data model to support living systematic literature reviews? - use case demonstration with LIVESLR®. Value in Health. 2023;26:S270–S270.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Liu R, Jafar R, Girard L, Thorlund K, Rizzo M, Forsythe A. improving efficiency of living systematic literature reviews (SLR) with artificial intelligence (AI): assisted extraction of population, intervention/comparator, outcome, and study design (P-I/C-O-S). Value Health. 2023;26:S6–S6.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Turner T, Elliott J, Tendal B, Vogel JP, Norris S, Tate R, et al. The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn’t and why, a mixed methods process evaluation. Ugalde A, editor. PLoS One. 2022;17:e0261479.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  29. Arienti C, Campagnini S, Brambilla L, Fanciullacci C, Lazzarini SG, Mannini A, et al. The methodology of a “living” COVID-19 registry development in a clinical context. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:209–17.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  30. Kingdon JW. Agendas, Alternatives, and Public Policies. Edition LC, editor. New York: Longman Classics; 2011.

  31. Lee C, Thomas M, Ejaredar M, Kassam A, Whittle SL, Buchbinder R, et al. Crowdsourcing trainees in a living systematic review provided valuable experiential learning opportunities: a mixed-methods study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;147:142–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  32. Adjei G, Enuameh YA, Thomford NE. Prevalence of COVID-19 genomic variation in Africa: a living systematic review protocol. JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20:158–63.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  33. Akl EA, Haddaway NR, Rada G, Lotfi T. Future of evidence ecosystem series: evidence synthesis 2.0: when systematic, scoping, rapid, living, and overviews of reviews come together. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:162–5.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  34. Amer YS, Titi MA, Godah MW, Wahabi HA, Hneiny L, Abouelkheir MM, et al. International alliance and AGREE-ment of 71 clinical practice guidelines on the management of critical care patients with COVID-19: a living systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;142:333–70.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Bell V, Wade D. Mental health of clinical staff working in high-risk epidemic and pandemic health emergencies a rapid review of the evidence and living meta-analysis. Soc Psychiatry Psychiatr Epidemiol. 2021;56:1–11.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Bin Riaz I, Siddiqi R, Asghar N, Cathcart-Rake EJ, Herasevich V, Montori V, et al. Living systematic reviews: A novel mechanism for improving efficiency and quality of evidence synthesis in oncology. J Clin Oncol. 2019;37.

  37. Boutron I, Ravaud P, Crequit P, Williams HC, Meerpohl J, Craig JC. Future of evidence ecosystem series: 3. From an evidence synthesis ecosystem to an evidence ecosystem. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:153–61.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  38. Crequit P, Boutron I, Meerpohl J, Williams HC, Craig J, Ravaud P. Future of evidence ecosystem series: 2. current opportunities and need for better tools and methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:143–52.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  39. Crequit P, Martin-Montoya T, Attiche N, Trinquart L, Vivot A, Ravaud P. Living network meta-analysis was feasible when considering the pace of evidence generation. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;108:10–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  40. Crequit P, Trinquart L, Yavchitz A, Ravaud P. Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer. BMC Med. 2016;14:8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  41. D’Souza R, Malhamé I, Shah PS. Evaluating perinatal outcomes during a pandemic: a role for living systematic reviews. Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101:4–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Dong F, Liu H, Dai N, Yang M, Liu J. A living systematic review of the psychological problems in people suffering from COVID-19. J Affect Disord. 2021;292:172–88.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  43. Donoghue E, Lunny C, Synnot A, Bragge P, Menon D, Clavisi O, et al. The currency, completeness and quality of systematic reviews of acute management of moderate to severe traumatic brain injury: a comprehensive evidence map. PLoS One. 2018;13:e0198676.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  44. Dzinamarira T, Mhango M, Dzobo M, Ngara B, Chitungo I, Makanda P, et al. Risk factors for COVID-19 among healthcare workers. A protocol for a systematic review and meta-analysis. PloS one. 2021;16:e0250958.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  45. Elbers S, Wittink H, Kaiser U, Kleijnen J, Pool J, Köke A, et al. Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare. Syst Rev. 2021;10:309.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  46. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JPT, Mavergames C, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014;11:e1001603.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  47. Elliott J, Lawrence R, Minx JC, Oladapo OT, Ravaud P, Tendal Jeppesen B, et al. Decision makers need constantly updated evidence synthesis. Nature. 2021;600:383–5.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Elvidge J, Summerfield A, Nicholls D, Dawoud D. Diagnostics and Treatments of COVID-19: a living systematic review of economic evaluations. Value Health. 2022;25:773–84.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  49. Eshun-Wilson I, Jaffer S, Smith R, Johnson S, Hine P, Mateo A, et al. Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews. Syst Rev. 2019;8:46.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  50. France EF, Wells M, Lang H, Williams B. Why, when and how to update a meta-ethnography qualitative synthesis. Syst Rev. 2016;5:44–44.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  51. Franco JVA, Sguassero Y. Pandemia por COVID-19 e infodemia: retos y oportunidades para la síntesis confiable y actualizada del conocimiento reliable and updated synthesis of knowledge. Rev Argent Salud Pública. 2020;12:8.

    Google Scholar 

  52. Fuentealba-Torres MÁ, Lagos Sánchez Z, De AlvesAraújoPüschel V, Cartagena D. Systematic Reviews to Strengthen Evidence-based Nursing Practice. Aquichan. 2021;21:1–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  53. Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, MacLehose H, Schünemann HJ, Akl EA, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354:i3507.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  54. Gilmore B, Gerlach N, Lopes CA, Diallo AA, Bhattacharyya S, De Claro V, et al. Community Engagement to support COVID-19 Vaccine Uptake: A living systematic review protocol. Public and Global Health; 2022. Available from: https://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2022.03.08.22272082

  55. Hazlewood GS, Whittle SL, Kamso MM, Akl EA, Wells GA, Tugwell P, et al. Disease‐modifying anti‐rheumatic drugs for rheumatoid arthritis: a systematic review and network meta‐analysis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2020. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD013562 NS - Lee 2020

  56. Iannizzi C, Dorando E, Burns J, Weibel S, Dooley C, Wakeford H, et al. Methodological challenges for living systematic reviews conducted during the COVID-19 pandemic: a concept paper. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;141:82–9.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  57. Ipekci AM, Buitrago-Garcia D, Meili KW, Krauer F, Prajapati N, Thapa S, et al. Outbreaks of publications about emerging infectious diseases: the case of SARS-CoV-2 and Zika virus. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21:50.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  58. John A, Okolie C, Eyles E, Webb RT, Schmidt L, McGuiness LA, et al. The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on self-harm and suicidal behaviour: a living systematic review. F1000Res. 2020;9:1097.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  59. Juul S, Klingenberg S, Gluud C, Nielsen N, Bentzer P, Linder A, et al. Interventions for treatment of COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING Project). Syst Rev. 2020;9:108.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  60. Kelly SE, Curran JA, Tricco AC. Managing unmanageable loads of evidence: are living reviews the answer? JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;20:1–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  61. Khamis AM, Kahale LA, Pardo-Hernandez H, Schunemann HJ, Akl EA. Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey. F1000Research. 2019;8:221.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  62. Korang SK, Juul S, Nielsen EE, Feinberg J, Siddiqui F, Ong G, et al. Vaccines to prevent COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review with network meta-analysis including individual patient data (The LIVING VACCINE Project). Syst Rev. 2020;9:262.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  63. Lansky A, Wethington HR. Living systematic reviews and other approaches for updating evidence. Am J Public Health. 2020;110:1687–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  64. Lerner I, Atal I, Crequit P, Ravaud P. Automatic screening using word embeddings achieved high sensitivity and workload reduction for updating living network meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;108:86–94.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. LIvE Framework. Living Interactive Systematic Reviews. 2020. Available from: https://rcc.network-meta-analysis.com/#. Cited 2022 Jul 12. 

    Google Scholar 

  66. Macdonald H, Loder E, Abbasi K. Living systematic reviews at The BMJ. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2020;370:m2925.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Macura B, Thomas J, Metson GS, McConville JR, Johannesdottir SL, Seddon D, et al. Technologies for recovery and reuse of plant nutrients from human excreta and domestic wastewater: a protocol for a systematic map and living evidence platform. Environ Evid. 2021;10:20.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  68. Maguire BJ, Guerin PJ. A living systematic review protocol for COVID-19 clinical trial registrations. Wellcome Open Res. 2020;5:60.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  69. MartínezGarcía L, Pardo-Hernandez H, Superchi C, de NiñoGuzman E, Ballesteros M, IbargoyenRoteta N, et al. Methodological systematic review identifies major limitations in prioritization processes for updating. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;86:11–24.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Mavergames C, Elliott J. Living Systematic Reviews: towards real-time evidence for health-care decision-making. BMJ Best Pract. Available from: https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/us/toolkit/discuss-ebm/living-systematic-reviews-towards-real-time-evidence-for-health-care-decision-making/. Cited 2022 Jul 12

  71. McDonagh MS, Chou R, Wagner J, Ahmed AY, Morasco BJ, Iyer S, et al. Living Systematic Reviews: Practical Considerations for the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality Evidence-based Practice Center Program. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ); 2022. Available from: https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/practical-considerations

  72. McDonald S, Turner S, Page MJ, Turner T. Most published systematic reviews of remdesivir for COVID-19 were redundant and lacked currency. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;146:22–31.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  73. Michelen M, Manoharan L, Elkheir N, Cheng V, Dagens A, Hastie C, et al. Characterising long COVID: a living systematic review. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6:e005427.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? The Lancet. 2006;367:881–3.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  75. Mondello S, Sorinola A, Czeiter E, Vamos Z, Amrein K, Synnot A, et al. Blood-based protein biomarkers for the management of traumatic brain injuries in adults presenting to emergency departments with mild brain injury: a living systematic review and meta-analysis. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38:1086–106.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  76. Negrini S, Ceravolo MG, Côté P, Arienti C. A systematic review that is ``rapid’’ and ``living’’: a specific answer to the COVID-19 pandemic. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;138:194–8.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  77. Nikolakopoulou A, Egger M, Salanti G, Mavridis D, Furukawa TA, Cipriani A, et al. Living network meta-analysis compared with pairwise meta-analysis in comparative effectiveness research: Empirical study. BMJ (Online). 2018;360:k585.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. O’Leary R, Qureshi MA, La Rosa GRM, Vernooij RWM, Odimegwu DC, Bertino G, et al. Respiratory and cardiovascular health effects of e-cigarette substitution: protocol for two living systematic reviews. JMIR Res Protoc. 2021;10:e29084.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Rahal AK, Badgett RG, Hoffman RM. Screening coverage needed to reduce mortality from prostate cancer: a living systematic review. PLoS ONE. 2016;11:e0153417.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  80. Riaz IB, He H, Ryu AJ, Siddiqi R, Naqvi SAA, Yao Y, et al. A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis of First-line Treatment of Metastatic Renal Cell Carcinoma. Eur Urol. 2021; Available from: http://ovidsp.ovid.com/ovidweb.cgi?T=JS&PAGE=reference&D=medp&NEWS=N&AN=33824031 NS -

  81. Riaz IB, He H, Ryu AJ, Siddiqi R, Naqvi SAA, Yao Y, et al. A framework for living evidence synthesis in cancer: Living, interactive network meta-analysis for first-line treatment of metastatic renal cell carcinoma (mRCC). JCO. 2021;39:335–335.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  82. Riaz IB, Rawal SC, Siddiqi R, Asghar N, Akhtar M, Gajic O, et al. Innovation in evidence synthesis: a living systematic review of immune checkpoint inhibitors in cancer patients. J Glob Oncol. 2019;5:80.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  83. Ritch R. Living reviews-a new frontier for the asia-pacific journal of ophthalmology. Asia Pac J Ophthalmol (Philadelphia, Pa). 2015;4:64–5.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  84. Santillan-Garcia A. Living evidence for SARS-CoV-2. Medicina Intensiva. 2020; Available from: http://www.doyma.es/medintensiva/ NS -

  85. Santillan-Garcia A, Bravo-Jeria R, Verdugo-Paiva F, Rada G. [Living evidence in response to controversies about the use of antimalarials in COVID-19]. Evidencia viva como respuesta a las controversias en el uso de antimalaricos en COVID-19. 2020;73:693–4.

  86. Shokraneh F, Russell-Rose T. Lessons from COVID-19 to future evidence synthesis efforts: first living search strategy and out of date scientific publishing and indexing industry. J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:171–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  87. Siemieniuk RA, Bartoszko JJ, Ge L, Zeraatkar D, Izcovich A, Kum E, et al. Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2020;370:m2980.

    PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  88. Simmonds M, Elliott JH, Synnot A, Turner T. Living Systematic Reviews. In: Evangelou E, Veroniki AA, editors. Meta-Research. New York, NY: Springer US; 2022. p. 121–34. Available from: https://link.springer.com/10.1007/978-1-0716-1566-9_7. Cited 2023 Nov 24

  89. Spurling GKP, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Clark J, Askew DA. Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017; Available from: https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD004417.pub5 NS -

  90. Stolk L, Middelburg R. Living systematic reviews. Ge-Bu. 2021;117–119:1.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Thakar A, Panara K, Goyal M, Kumari R, Sungchol K. Impact of AYUSH interventions on COVID-19: a protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis. F1000Res. 2022;10:674.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  92. The Cochrane Collaboration. Living systematic reviews. Available from: https://community.cochrane.org/review-production/production-resources/living-systematic-reviews. Cited 2022 Jul 12

  93. The Cochrane Collaboration. Guidance for the production and publication of Cochrane living systematic reviews: Cochrane Reviews in living mode. 2019.

    Google Scholar 

  94. Turner T, Elliott J, Tendal B, Vogel JP, Norris S, Tate R, et al. The Australian living guidelines for the clinical care of people with COVID-19: What worked, what didn’t and why, a mixed methods process evaluation. Ugalde A, editor. PLOS One. 2022;17:e0261479–e0261479.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  95. Vandvik PO, Brignardello-Petersen R, Guyatt GH. Living cumulative network meta-analysis to reduce waste in research: a paradigmatic shift for systematic reviews? BMC Med. 2016;14:59.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  96. Vergara-Merino L, Verdejo C, Carrasco C, Vargas-Peirano M. Living systematic review: new inputs and challenges. La revision sistematica viva: nuevos aportes y desafios. 2020;20:e8092.

    Google Scholar 

  97. Viljoen C, Van JanseRensburg DC (Christa), Van Mechelen W, Verhagen E, Silva B, Scheer V, et al. Trail running injury risk factors: a living systematic review. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56:577–87.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  98. Vogel JP, Dowswell T, Lewin S, Bonet M, Hampson L, Kellie F, et al. Developing and applying a “living guidelines” approach to WHO recommendations on maternal and perinatal health. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4:e001683.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  99. Winters M, de Vos R-J, van Middelkoop M, Rathleff MS, Weir A. Stay alive! What are living systematic reviews and what are their advantages and challenges? Br J Sports Med. 2021;55.

  100. Xu J, Deng H. A brief introduction of living systematic review. Chin J Evid Based Med. 2020;20:244–8.

    Google Scholar 

  101. 张迁王琪. 动态指南制订方法及案例介绍. 中国循证医学杂志. 14:52:18.0;21:491–6.

  102. Breuer C, Meerpohl J, Siemens W. From standard systematic reviews to living systematic reviews. Z Fur Evid Fortbildung Qual Gesundheitswes. 2023;176:76–81.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  103. Butler A, Hartmann-Boyce J, Livingstone-Banks J, Turner T, Lindson N. Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024;166:111231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  104. Carmona C, Carroll C, Baxter S. The move towards living systematic reviews and living guidelines in healthcare: consideration of the possibilities and challenges for living qualitative evidence syntheses. Syst Rev. 2023;12:47.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Chang S. Living, rapid reviews in a rapidly evolving world. Ann Intern Med. 2023;176:135–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  106. Cheyne S, Chakraborty S, Lewis S, Campbell S, Turner T, Norris S. What could health technology assessment learn from living clinical practice guidelines? Front Pharmacol. 2023;14:1234414.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  107. El Mikati IK, Khabsa J, Harb T, Khamis M, Agarwal A, Pardo-Hernandez H, et al. A Framework for the development of living practice guidelines in health care. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175:1154–60.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Grbin L, Nichols P, Russell F, Fuller-Tyszkiewicz M, Olsson C. The Development of a Living Knowledge System and Implications for Future Systematic Searching. J Aust Lib Inform Assoc. 2022;71:275–92.

    Google Scholar 

  109. Liu R, Agranat J, Rizzo M, Forsythe A. Exploring efficiency of living systematic literature review (slr) tool for submissions of clinical evidence to national institute for health and care excellence (NICE) by combining interventional and real-world evidence (RWE). Value Health. 2023;26:S349–S349.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  110. Luo J, Chen Z, Liu D, Li H, He S, Zeng L, et al. Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2023;23:175.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  111. Munn Z, Pollock D, Barker T, Stone J, Stern C, Aromataris E, et al. The Pandora’s Box of Evidence Synthesis and the case for a living Evidence Synthesis Taxonomy. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023;28:148–50.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Norris SL. Current definitions of living systematic reviews and living guidelines need to change. J Evid Based Med. 2022;15:75–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  113. Patel V, Dabirvaziri P, Tran J, Richard M, Grieve S, Thakur D. Use of living systematic reviews (LSRS) beyond COVID-19. Value in Health. 2023;26:S399–S399.

    Article  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  114. Paul M, Leeflang M. Living systematic reviews: aims and standards. Clin Microbiol Infect. 2024;30:265–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  115. Riley S, Swanson B, Shaffer S, Flowers D, Cook C, Brismée J. Why do “Trustworthy” Living Systematic Reviews Matter? J Man Manip Ther. 2023;31:215–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  116. Turner T, Lavis J, Grimshaw J, Green S, Elliott J. Living evidence and adaptive policy: perfect partners? Health Res Policy Syst. 2023;21:135.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  117. Uttley L, Quintana D, Montgomery P, Carroll C, Page M, Falzon L, et al. The problems with systematic reviews: a living systematic review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;156:30–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Zhang Q, Wang Q, Hou L, Yang Q, Cao X, Zhou Q, et al. An introduction to the development methods and cases of living guidelines. Chin J Evid Based Med. 2021;21:491–6.

    Google Scholar 

  119. Zheng Q, Xu J, Gao Y, Liu M, Cheng L, Xiong L, et al. Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2022;7:e009378.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  120. Ahmadzai N, Newberry SJ, Maglione MA, Tsertsvadze A, Ansari MT, Hempel S, et al. A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:104.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  121. Amezcua-Prieto C, Fernandez-Luna JM, Huete-Guadix JF, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Khan KS. Artificial intelligence and automation of systematic reviews in women’s health. Curr Opin Obstet Gynecol. 2020;32:335–41.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Barrowman NJ, Fang M, Sampson M, Moher D. Identifying null meta-analyses that are ripe for updating. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2003;3:13.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  123. Buitrago-Garcia D, Ipekci AM, Heron L, Imeri H, Araujo-Chaveron L, Arevalo-Rodriguez I, et al. Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-. Ford N, editor. PLoS Med. 2022;19:e1003987.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  124. Chou R, Dana T, Shetty KD. Testing a Machine Learning Tool for Facilitating Living Systematic Reviews of Chronic Pain Treatments. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 2020. Available from: https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/33175480/. Cited 2023 Nov 24

  125. Christie AP, Amano T, Martin PA, Shackelford GE, Simmons BI, Sutherland WJ. Innovation and forward-thinking are needed to improve traditional synthesis methods: A response to Pescott and Stewart. J Appl Ecol. 2022;59:1191–7.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  126. Cohen AM, Ambert K, McDonagh M. Cross-topic learning for work prioritization in systematic review creation and update. J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2009;16:690–704.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  127. Cohen AM, Ambert K, McDonagh M. Studying the potential impact of automated document classification on scheduling a systematic review update. BMC Med Inform Decis Mak. 2012;12:33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  128. Cowie K, Rahmatullah A, Hardy N, Holub K, Kallmes K. Web-Based Software Tools for Systematic Literature Review in Medicine: Systematic Search and Feature Analysis. JMIR Med Inform. 2022;10:e33219.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Dalal SR, Shekelle PG, Hempel S, Newberry SJ, Motala A, Shetty KD. A pilot study using machine learning and domain knowledge to facilitate comparative effectiveness review updating. Med Decis Making. 2013;33:343–55.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Gates M, Elliott SA, Gates A, Sebastianski M, Pillay J, Bialy L, et al. LOCATE: a prospective evaluation of the value of Leveraging Ongoing Citation Acquisition Techniques for living Evidence syntheses. Syst Rev. 2021;10:116.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  131. Gomes J, Sousa P, Pereira F, Queirós C, Neves H, Silva C, et al. Nursing knowledge on skin ulcer healing: a living scoping review protocol. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;20:164–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  132. Hair K. A Living Evidence Framework for Alzheimers Disease Studies. Open Science Framework. 2021;

  133. Harrington L. COVID-19 Technology-Enabled Living Systematic Reviews to Enhance Knowledge Translation. AACN Adv Crit Care. 2021;32:133–6.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  134. Huelsemann M, Drude N, Kniffert S, Toelch U, hocke andreas, Bannach-Brown A. Living Systematic Review. 2022; Available from: https://osf.io/zg4q3/. Cited 2023 Nov 24

  135. Kahale LA, Hakoum MB, Tsolakian IG, Alturki F, Matar CF, Terrenato I, et al. Anticoagulation for the long‐term treatment of venous thromboembolism in people with cancer. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2018; https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006650.pub5 NS -

  136. Kirkham AM, Bailey AJM, Monaghan M, Shorr R, Lalu MM, Fergusson DA, et al. Updated Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis of Controlled Trials of Mesenchymal Stromal Cells to Treat COVID-19: A Framework for Accelerated Synthesis of Trial Evidence for Rapid Approval—FASTER Approval. Stem Cells Transl Med. 2022;11:675–87.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  137. Lavis JN, Oxman AD, Souza NM, Lewin S, Gruen RL, Fretheim A. SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 9: Assessing the applicability of the findings of a systematic review. Health Res Policy Sys. 2009;7:S9.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. McDonald S, Agoritsas T, Hilton J, Perron C, Akl E, Hodder R, et al. Living systematic reviews: Combining human and machine effort. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:31–7.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Metzendorf M, Featherstone RM. Evaluation of the comprehensiveness, accuracy and currency of the Cochrane COVID -19 Study Register for supporting rapid evidence synthesis production. Research Synthesis Methods. 2021;12:607–17.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  140. Meza N, Perez-Bracchiglione J, Perez I, Carvajal C, Ortiz-Munoz L, Olguin P, et al. Angiotensinconverting-enzyme inhibitors and angiotensin II receptor blockers for COVID-19: A living systematic review of randomized clinical trials. Medwave. 2021;21(2).

  141. Millard T, Synnot A, Elliott J, Green S, McDonald S, Turner T. Feasibility and acceptability of living systematic reviews: results from a mixed-methods evaluation. Syst Rev. 2019;8:325.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, et al. A systematic review identified few methods and strategies describing when and how to update systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2007;60:1095.e1–1095.e11.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Nama N, Donken R, Pawliuk C, Leache L, Sadarangani M, Carwana M, et al. Treatment of UTIs in Infants <2 Months: a living systematic review. Hosp Pediatr. 2021;11:1017–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  144. Nikolakopoulou A, Mavridis D, Egger M, Salanti G. Continuously updated network meta-analysis and statistical monitoring for timely decision-making. Stat Methods Med Res. 2018;27:1312–30.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  145. O’Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Ananiadou S, Miwa M. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: A systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4:5.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  146. Perlman-Arrow S, Loo N, Bobrovitz N, Yan T, Arora RK. A real-world evaluation of the implementation of NLP technology in abstract screening of a systematic review. Epidemiology; 2022. Available from: https://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2022.02.24.22268947

  147. Pierre O, Riveros C, Charpy S, Boutron I. Secondary electronic sources demonstrated very good sensitivity for identifying studies evaluating interventions for COVID-19. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;141:46–53.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  148. Qaseem A, Yost J, Forciea MA, Jokela JA, Miller MC, Obley A, et al. The Development of Living, Rapid Practice Points: Summary of Methods From the Scientific Medical Policy Committee of the American College of Physicians. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:1126–32.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  149. Rada G, Verdugo-Paiva F, Ávila C, Morel-Marambio M, Bravo-Jeria R, Pesce F, et al. Evidence synthesis relevant to COVID-19: a protocol for multiple systematic reviews and overviews of systematic reviews. Medwave. 2020;20:e7867–e7867.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  150. Rehfuess EA, Burns JB, Pfadenhauer LM, Krishnaratne S, Littlecott H, Meerpohl JJ, et al. Lessons learnt: undertaking rapid reviews on public health and social measures during a global pandemic. Res Synth Methods. 2022;13:558–72.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  151. Riaz IB, Siddiqi R, Islam M, He H, Riaz A, Asghar N, et al. Adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in renal cell carcinoma: a concluded living systematic review and meta-analysis. JCO Clin Cancer Inform. 2021;5:588–99.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  152. Røst TB, Slaughter L, Nytrø Ø, Muller AE, Vist GE. Using neural networks to support high-quality evidence mapping. BMC Bioinformatics. 2021;22:496.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  153. Russell F, Grbin L, Beard F, Higgins J, Kelly B. The evolution of a mediated systematic review search service. J Aust Lib Inform Assoc. 2022;71:89–107.

    Google Scholar 

  154. Shekelle PG, Shetty K, Newberry S, Maglione M, Motala A. Machine learning versus standard techniques for updating searches for systematic reviews: a diagnostic accuracy study. Ann Intern Med. 2017;167:213.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  155. Simmonds M, Salanti G, McKenzie J, Elliott J. Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017;91:38–46.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  156. Sutton AJ, Donegan S, Takwoingi Y, Garner P, Gamble C, Donald A. An encouraging assessment of methods to inform priorities for updating systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:241–51.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  157. Takwoingi Y, Hopewell S, Tovey D, Sutton AJ. A multicomponent decision tool for prioritising the updating of systematic reviews. BMJ. 2013;347:f7191–f7191.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Ter Schure J, Grunwald P. Accumulation Bias in meta-analysis: the need to consider time in error control. F1000Res. 2019;8:962.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  159. Tercero-Hidalgo JR, Khan KS, Bueno-Cavanillas A, Fernández-López R, Huete JF, Amezcua-Prieto C, et al. Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 evidence syntheses was underutilized, but impactful: a methodological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;148:124–34.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  160. Turner T, McDonald S, Wiles L, English C, Hill K. How frequently should “living” guidelines be updated? Insights from the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines. Health Res Policy Sys. 2022;20:73.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  161. Verdugo-Paiva F, Vergara C, Ávila C, Castro-Guevara JA, Cid J, Contreras V, et al. COVID-19 Living Overview of Evidence repository is highly comprehensive and can be used as a single source for COVID-19 studies. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;149:195–202.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  162. Wallace BC, Small K, Brodley CE, Lau J, Schmid CH, Bertram L, et al. Toward modernizing the systematic review pipeline in genetics: efficient updating via data mining. Genet Med. 2012;14:663–9.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  163. Winters M, Holden S, Vicenzino B, Welton NJ, Caldwell DM, Lura CB, et al. Which treatment is most effective for patients with patellofemoral pain? A protocol for a living systematic review including network meta-analysis. BMJ Open. 2018;8:e022920.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  164. Xin Y, Nevill CR, Nevill J, Gray E, Cooper NJ, Bradbury N, et al. Feasibility study for interactive reporting of network meta-analysis: experiences from the development of the MetaInsight COVID-19 app for stakeholder exploration, re-analysis and sensitivity analysis from living systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2022;22:26.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  165. Zsidai B, Kaarre J, Hamrin Senorski E, Feldt R, Grassi A, Ayeni OR, et al. Living evidence: a new approach to the appraisal of rapidly evolving musculoskeletal research. Br J Sports Med. 2022;56:1261–2.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  166. Alec Methods & Proc Working Grp, Cheyne S, Navarro D, Buttery A, Chakraborty S, Crane O, et al. Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 3: selecting and prioritizing questions for living guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;155:73–83.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  167. Australian Living Evidence, Cheyne S, Navarro D, Hill K, McDonald S, Tunnicliffe D, et al. Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 1: Introduction. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;155:84–96.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  168. Australian Living Evidence Consort, McDonald S, Sharp S, Morgan R, Murad M, Navarro D. Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience .Paper 4: search methods and approaches for living guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;155:108–17.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  169. Bendersky J, Auladell-Rispau A, Urrutia G, Rojas-Reyes MX. Methods for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2022;152:89–100.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  170. Cuijpers P, Miguel C, Papola D, Harrer M, Karyotaki E. From living systematic reviews to meta-analytical research domains. Evid Based Ment Health. 2022;25:145–7.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  171. Evrenoglou T, Boutron I, Seitidis G, Ghosn L, Chaimani A. metaCOVID: A web-application for living meta-analyses of COVID-19 trials. Res Synth methods. 2023;14:479–88.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Iannizzi C, Akl E, Anslinger E, Weibel S, Kahale L, Aminat A, et al. Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review. Syst Rev. 2023;12:238.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  173. Külper-Schiek W, Thielemann I, Pilic A, Meerpohl JJ, Siemens W, Vygen-Bonnet S, et al. Needs and feasibility of living systematic reviews (LSRs): Experience from LSRs on COVID-19 vaccine effectiveness. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundhwes. 2024;S1865–9217(24):00007.

    Google Scholar 

  174. Kamso M, Pardo J, Whittle S, Buchbinder R, Wells G, Glennon V, et al. Crowdsourcing and automation facilitated the identification and classification of randomized controlled trials in a living review. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;164:1–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  175. Knafou J, Haas Q, Borissov N, Counotte M, Low N, Imeri H, et al. Ensemble of deep learning language models to support the creation of living systematic reviews for the COVID-19 literature. Syst Rev. 2023;12:94.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  176. Marshall I, Trikalinos T, Soboczenski F, Yun H, Kell G, Marshall R, et al. In a pilot study, automated real-time systematic review updates were feasible, accurate, and work-saving. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;153:26–33.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  177. Navarro D, Cheyne S, Hill K, McFarlane E, Morgan R, Murad M, et al. METHODS FOR LIVING GUIDELINES SERIES Methods for living guidelines: early guidance based on practical experience. Paper 5: decisions on methods for evidence synthesis and recommendation development for living guidelines. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;155:118–28.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  178. Perlman-Arrow S., Loo N., Bobrovitz N., Yan T., Arora R.K. A real-world evaluation of the implementation of NLP technology in abstract screening of a systematic review. medRxiv. 2022; Available from: https://www.medrxiv.org/

  179. Schmidt L, Sinyor M, Webb R, Marshall C, Knipe D, Eyles E, et al. A narrative review of recent tools and innovations toward automating living systematic reviews and evidence syntheses. Z Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundheitswes. 2023;181:65–75.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  180. Skinner G, Cooke R, Keum J, Purvis A, Raw C, Woodcock B, et al. Dynameta: A dynamic platform for ecological meta-analyses in R Shiny. Softwarex. 2023;23:101439.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Ter Schure J, Grunwald P. ALL-IN meta-analysis: breathing life into living systematic reviews. F1000Res. 2022;11:549.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  182. Torres O, Pearce H, Ford J. A new dawn for evidence synthesis: Embracing machine learning technology to generate living evidence maps. Public Health Pract. 2023;6:100434.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  183. Akl EA, Kahale LA, Hakoum MB, Matar CF, Sperati F, Barba M, et al. Parenteral anticoagulation in ambulatory patients with cancer. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2017. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD006652.pub5 NS - Akl 2017

  184. Allotey J, Stallings E, Bonet M, Yap M, Chatterjee S, Kew T, et al. Clinical manifestations, risk factors, and maternal and perinatal outcomes of coronavirus disease 2019 in pregnancy: living systematic review and meta-analysis. BMJ (Clinical research ed). 2020;370:m3320.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  185. Chong L-Y, Piromchai P, Sharp S, Snidvongs K, Philpott C, Hopkins C, et al. Biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2019;2019:CD013513.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  186. Counotte MJ, Egli-Gany D, Riesen M, Abraha M, Porgo TV, Wang J, et al. Zika virus infection as a cause of congenital brain abnormalities and Guillain-Barre syndrome: From systematic review to living systematic review. F1000Res. 2018;7:196.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  187. Hodder RK, Nathan NK, Sutherland R, Yoong SL, Stacey FG, Wyse RJ, et al. Interventions for increasing fruit and vegetable consumption in children aged five years and under. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;2017:CD008552.

    PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  188. Maas AIR. Living systematic reviews: a novel approach to create a living evidence base. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38:1068.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  189. Riaz IB, Fuentes HE, Naqvi SAA, He H, Sipra QAR, Tafur AJ, et al. Direct Oral Anticoagulants Compared With Dalteparin for Treatment of Cancer-Associated Thrombosis: A Living, Interactive Systematic Review and Network Meta-analysis. Mayo Clinic Proc. 2022;97:308–24.

    Article  CAS  Google Scholar 

  190. Romero Starke K, Reissig D, Petereit-Haack G, Schmauder S, Nienhaus A, Seidler A. The isolated effect of age on the risk of COVID-19 severe outcomes: a systematic review with meta-analysis. BMJ Glob Health. 2021;6:e006434.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  191. Siemieniuk RA, Bartoszko JJ, Díaz Martinez JP, Kum E, Qasim A, Zeraatkar D, et al. Antibody and cellular therapies for treatment of covid-19: a living systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMJ. 2021;374:n2231.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Sinha A, Nayak S, Dehuri P, Kanungo S, Pati S. Clinico-epidemiological characteristics of Kawasaki-like disease in paediatric patients with COVID-19: a protocol for rapid living systematic review. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e041160.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. Spurling GK, Del Mar CB, Dooley L, Foxlee R, Farley R. Delayed antibiotic prescriptions for respiratory infections. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2017;9:CD004417.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  194. Yang J, D’Souza R, Kharrat A, Fell DB, Snelgrove JW, Shah PS. COVID-19 pandemic and population-level pregnancy and neonatal outcomes in general population: a living systematic review and meta-analysis (Update#2: November 20, 2021). Acta Obstet Gynecol Scand. 2022;101:273–92.

    Article  CAS  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  195. Hodder R, Vogel J, Wolfenden L, Turner T. Living Systematic Reviews and Living Guidelines to Maintain the Currency of Public Health Guidelines. Am J Public Health. 2024;114:21–6.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  196. McDonald S, Hill K, Li H, Turner T. Evidence surveillance for a living clinical guideline: Case study of the Australian stroke guidelines. Health Inform Libr J. 2023:1–12. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/hir.12515.

  197. Coyle D, Potter B, DeJean D, Clifford T, Skidmore B, Alexander C, et al. Cannabis for pediatric epilepsy: Protocol for a living systematic review. Syst Rev. 2018;7:95.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  198. Créquit P, Chaimani A, Yavchitz A, Attiche N, Cadranel J, Trinquart L, et al. Comparative efficacy and safety of second-line treatments for advanced non-small cell lung cancer with wild-type or unknown status for epidermal growth factor receptor: a systematic review and network meta-analysis. BMC Med. 2017;15:193.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  199. French SD, McDonald S, McKenzie JE, Green SE. Investing in updating: how do conclusions change when Cochrane systematic reviews are updated? BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005;5:33.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  200. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco A, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, Sampson M, et al. When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2008;2010. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.MR000023.pub3

  201. Norton A, Bucher A, Antonio E, Advani N, Grund H, Mburu S, et al. A living mapping review for COVID-19 funded research projects: three-month update. Wellcome Open Research. 2020;5:209.

    PubMed  Google Scholar 

  202. O’Byrne L, Webster KE, MacKeith S, Philpott C, Hopkins C, Burton MJ. Interventions for the treatment of persistent post-COVID-19 olfactory dysfunction. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. 2021;2021. Available from: http://doi.wiley.com/10.1002/14651858.CD013876.pub2

  203. Rada G, Corbalan J, Rojas P. Terapias celulares para el COVID-19: Una revision sistematica viva, Cell-based therapies for COVID-19: A living, systematic review. Medwave. 2020;20:e8079.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  204. Roberto A, Greco MT, Uggeri S, Cavuto S, Deandrea S, Corli O, et al. Living systematic review to assess the analgesic undertreatment in cancer patients. Pain Pract. 2022;22:487–96.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Schmidt L, Olorisade BK, McGuinness LA, Higgins JPT. Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Aa living review protocol. F1000Research. 2020;9:210.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  206. Synnot A, Gruen RL, Menon D, Steyerberg EW, Buki A, Peul WC, et al. A new approach to evidence synthesis in traumatic brain injury: a living systematic review. J Neurotrauma. 2021;38:1069–71.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  207. Chou R, Ahmed AY, Iyer S, Morasco BJ, Bougatsos C, Kansagara D. Living Systematic Reviews: Practical Considerations for Adapting Scope and Communicating the Evolving Evidence. 2022.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  208. Heron L, Buitrago-Garcia D, Ipekci A, Baumann R, Imeri H, Salanti G, et al. How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide. Syst Rev. 2023;12:156.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  209. Williamson L, Mcarthur E, Dolan H, Levesque J, Sutherland K. Horizon scanning, rapid reviews and living evidence to support decision-making: lessons from the work of the Critical Intelligence Unit in New South Wales, Australia during the COVID-19 pandemic. BMJ Open. 2023;13:e071003.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  210. Charide R, Stallwood L, Munan M, Sayfi S, Hartling L, Butcher NJ, et al. Knowledge mobilization activities to support decision-making by youth, parents, and adults using a systematic and living map of evidence and recommendations on COVID-19: protocol for three randomized controlled trials and qualitative user-experience studies. Public Glob Health; 2022. Available from: http://medrxiv.org/lookup/doi/10.1101/2022.05.09.22274842

  211. Ripberger J, Bell A, Fox A, Forney A, Livingston W, Gaddie C, et al. Communicating Probability Information in Weather Forecasts: Findings and Recommendations from a Living Systematic Review of the Research Literature. Weather Climate Soc. 2022;14:481–98.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  212. Shanahan DR. A living document: reincarnating the research article. Trials. 2015;16:151.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  213. Shokraneh F, Russell-Rose T. Lessons from COVID-19 to future evidence synthesis efforts: first living search strategy and out of date scientific publishing and indexing industry (submitted). J Clin Epidemiol. 2020;123:171–3.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  214. Yap M, Debenham L, Kew T, Chatterjee SR, Allotey J, Stallings E, et al. Clinical manifestations, prevalence, risk factors, outcomes, transmission, diagnosis and treatment of COVID-19 in pregnancy and postpartum: a living systematic review protocol. BMJ Open. 2020;10:e041868.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  215. Hair K, Wilson E, Wong C, Tsang A, Macleod M, Bannach-Brown A. Systematic online living evidence summaries : emerging tools to accelerate evidence synthesis. Clin Sci. 2023;137:773–84.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  216. Iannizzi C, Akl EA, Kahale LA, Dorando E, Mosunmola Aminat A, Barker JM, et al. Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol. F1000Research. 2021;10:802.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  217. Khabsa J, Chang S, McKenzie J, Barker J, Boutron I, Kahale L, et al. Conceptualizing the reporting of living systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2023;156:113–8.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  218. Meteku B, Quigley M, Turner T, Green S. Barriers to and facilitators of living guidelines use in low-income and middle-income countries: a scoping review. BMJ Open. 2024;14:e074311.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  219. Metzendorf M, Weibel S, Reis S, McDonald S. Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023;28:267–72.

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  220. Pielenz C, Schneider M, Salveridou-Hof E, Flick M, Gaigl G, Khorikian-Ghazari N, et al. From conventional to living guidelines - faster updates for better informed guidance? A scoping review. Evid Fortbild Qual Gesundheitswes. 2022;174:20–31.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  221. Murad M, Wang Z, Chu H, Lin L, El Mikati I, Khabsa J, et al. Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023;28:348–52.

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

We acknowledge and thank all the individuals that participated in the COVID-END listserv discussion on living evidence syntheses.

Funding

The authors are grateful for the support received from the Global Commission on Evidence to Address Societal Challenges to conduct this work.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. McMaster Health Forum, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W MML-417, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4L6, Canada

    Cristián Mansilla, Qi Wang, Kerry Waddell & John N. Lavis

  2. Health Policy PhD Program, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W 2C Area, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada

    Cristián Mansilla, Qi Wang, Kerry Waddell & Arthur Sweetman

  3. Department of Health Research Methods Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W 2C Area, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4K1, Canada

    Thomas Piggott, Gordon Guyatt & John N. Lavis

  4. Peterborough Public Health, 185 King Street, Peterborough, ON, K9J 2R8, Canada

    Thomas Piggott

  5. Department of Family Medicine, Queens University, 220 Bagot St, Kingston, ON, K7L 3G2, Canada

    Thomas Piggott

  6. Monash Sustainable Development Institute Evidence Review Service, BehaviourWorks Australia, Monash University, Wellington Rd, Clayton VIC 3800, Melbourne, Australia

    Peter Bragge

  7. Department of Economics, McMaster University, 1280 Main St W Kenneth Taylor Hall Rm. 129, Hamilton, ON, L8S 4M4, Canada

    Arthur Sweetman

Authors
  1. Cristián Mansilla
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Qi Wang
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Thomas Piggott
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  4. Peter Bragge
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  5. Kerry Waddell
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  6. Gordon Guyatt
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  7. Arthur Sweetman
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

  8. John N. Lavis
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

CM and JNL conceived the idea. CM, AS, GG and JNL wrote the protocol. CM, QW, TP, KW and PB participated in the screening and data extraction. CM performed data analysis and led the article writing, with inputs from JNL, AS and GG. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Cristián Mansilla.

Ethics declarations

Ethics approval and consent to participate

Not applicable.

Consent for publication

Not applicable.

Competing interests

The authors declare that they have no competing interests.

Additional information

Publisher’s Note

Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Supplementary Information

Additional file 1. Search strategies: detailed search strategies used in this evidence synthesis.

Additional file 2. Excluded articles. List of articles excluded specifying their reasons.

13012_2024_1396_MOESM3_ESM.xlsx

Additional file 3. Quality of the evidence syntheses included, and methodological limitations of the empirical primary studies included. Appraisal of the quality of the evidence syntheses (using the AMSTAR score), and methodological limitations of primary studies (using MMAT).

13012_2024_1396_MOESM4_ESM.xlsx

Additional file 4. Contribution of each article to the thematic categories. Specification of how each article contributes to each thematic categories and sub-themes identified by the evidence synthesis.

13012_2024_1396_MOESM5_ESM.docx

Additional file 5. Detailed description of each thematic category. Detailing and explaining how each thematic category and sub-theme are framed.

Rights and permissions

Open Access This article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Mansilla, C., Wang, Q., Piggott, T. et al. A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making. Implementation Sci 19, 67 (2024). https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01396-2

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1186/s13012-024-01396-2

Keywords

Implementation Science

ISSN: 1748-5908