Keywords
Living systematic reviews, methods and guidance, scoping review, conducting LSRs, reporting, appraisal
This article is included in the Research on Research, Policy & Culture gateway.
This article is included in the Living Evidence collection.
Living systematic reviews, methods and guidance, scoping review, conducting LSRs, reporting, appraisal
Systematic reviews (SRs) are essential to provide evidence-based answers to clinical and public health-related questions. Due to continuous publishing of relevant primary studies in some areas, it is important to keep these SRs up-to-date.1 One could achieve that goal by adopting the living systematic review (LSR) approach, which is based on an ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating.2 Regular searches ensure that the SR includes the latest available findings and remains up-to-date.2 Therefore, LSRs are most suitable for high-priority topics with substantial uncertainty and frequent publications.When continually updating a review, it is important but challenging to report changes to the methodology and to the findings in transparent and traceable ways.
Few guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing and appraisal of LSRs. The Living Evidence Network developed the “Guidance for the production and publication of Cochrane living systematic reviews”, but that guidance is now four years old.3 While the recent update of the ‘Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses’ (PRISMA) can be used for reporting living systematic reviews, the statement indicates there may be some additional considerations that need to be addressed.4 On the other hand, the AMSTAR - Assessing the Methodological Quality of Systematic Reviews tool which was developed for the critical appraisal of the quality of SRs, does not consider LSRs.5
Therefore, it is of high interest to summarize the literature evaluating methods of conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising LSRs, as well as any guidance on those methods.
The objective of this scoping review is to systematically collate methodological literature and guidance on how to conduct, report, publish and appraise the quality of LSRs. The scoping review will allow the mapping of the existing evidence on the topic to support LSRs authors seeking guidance. Also, the scoping review will identify the knowledge gaps in the field and any need to revise existing guidance or develop new ones for conducting, reporting and appraising LSRs.
This scoping review study will be part of a larger project to develop an extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for living systematic reviews. To achieve our objectives, we will conduct a scoping review to survey and evaluate existing evidence and literature, especially with regards to the availability of methods papers, evidence gaps and associated primary research gaps.6 A framework is illustrating an overview of the methodological plan for this scoping review from the search to the data synthesis (Figure 1). Scoping reviews are particularly useful in the context of emerging evidence and act as a precursor for other topic-related projects.6 We will use standard scoping review methodology with the following steps:
a) identification of the research question;
b) identification of relevant studies;
c) study selection;
d) charting the data; and
e) collating, summarizing and reporting of the results.7
We will include articles that devoted at least two paragraphs to discuss methods or conceptual approaches for how to conduct, report, publish or appraise LSRs. Such articles should ideally include methodological or concept papers describing methods for LSRs, guidance (e.g. handbooks) for undertaking LSRs, issued by organizations that conduct evidence syntheses, and commentaries or editorials that discuss methods for LSR.
We will exclude from our search, LSRs themselves, as well as LSR protocols.
We will search in MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane from 2013 using the OVID interface. The search strategy was developed by a researcher experienced in developing literature search strategies with the help of an information specialist (LH) as part of a larger project to develop an extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs.8,9 The strategy was peer-reviewed by an information specialist (IM) who will also run the search planned for July or August 2021. Please see Box 1 for the complete search strategy.
Medline
1. exp Meta-Analysis as topic/
2. Systematic Reviews as Topic/
3. (meta-analysis or review or systematic review).pt. or search*.tw.
4. 1 or 2 or 3
5. ((continuous* or continual* or continue or periodic*) adj3 (updat* or search*)).mp.
6. 4 and 5
7. ((living adj3 (review* or metaanaly* or (meta adj analy*))) or lsr).mp.
8. 6 or 7
9. limit 8 to yr="2013 -Current"
Embase
1. 'meta analysis'/exp OR 'meta analysis (topic)'/de
2. 'systematic review'/de OR 'systematic review(topic)'/de
3. 'meta analys$s':ti OR review*:ti OR metanalys$s:ti OR search:ti,ab
4. #1 OR #2 OR #3
5. ((continuous* OR continual* OR continue OR periodic*) NEAR/3 (updat* OR search*)):ti,ab,kw
6. #4 AND #5
7. ((living NEAR/3 (review* OR metaanaly* OR 'meta analy*' OR metanaly*)):ti,ab,kw) OR lsr:ti,ab,kw
8. #6 OR #7
9. #8 AND (2013:py OR 2014:py OR 2015:py OR 2016:py OR 2017:py OR 2018:py OR 2019:py OR 2020:py OR 2021:py)
Cochrane:
1. MeSH descriptor: [Meta-Analysis] this term only
2. MeSH descriptor: [Meta-Analysis as Topic] explode all trees
3. MeSH descriptor: [Systematic Review] this term only
4. MeSH descriptor: [Systematic Reviews as Topic] this term only
5. ((((meta-analys?s or review* or metanalys?s or metaanalys?s)))):pt
6. (((search*))):ti OR (((search*))):ab
7. #1 OR #2 OR #3 OR #4 OR #5 OR #6
8. ((((continuous* OR continual* OR continue OR periodic*) NEAR/2 (updat* or search*)))):ti,ab,kw
9. #7 AND #8
10. (((living NEAR/2 (evidence OR metaanaly* OR meta-analy* OR metanaly*))) OR LSR):ti,ab,kw
#9 OR #10 with Cochrane Library publication date Between Jan 2013 and April 2021
As for searching the “grey literature”, we will seek existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses (e.g. Cochrane handbook, Living Evidence network, JBI) using the Lens.org website. Additionally, we will conduct a step-backwards citation approach to identify relevant LSRs handbooks and guidance documents from the reference list of published LSRs. We will also use forward searching, using certain seminal documents (e.g. papers defining LSRs and Cochrane guidance) and track their citations via google scholar.
Two authors (CI, AM) will independently and in duplicate screen titles and abstracts. We will use a web-based systematic review software Rayyan (RRID:SCR_017584) for the screening process. To ensure a consistent screening procedure and optimize agreement, we will develop and use a detailed written instruction form. We will then screen for full text assessing eligibility, based on our predefined eligibility criteria. Disagreements and conflicts will be solved by a third author.
Two review authors will extract and catalogue the study data on LSR methodological aspects into a standardized and pilot tested data extraction form in Microsoft Excel (RRID:SCR_016137); an open-access alternative is Google Sheets (RRID:SCR_017679). All reviewers will participate in calibration exercises before data abstraction to improve reliability, and the senior investigator will serve as a third independent reviewer for resolving disagreements. The predefined categories of data extraction will be piloted, and we will chart data regarding proposed methods for (i) conducting LSRs, (ii) reporting of LSRs, (iii) publishing and (iv) appraising the quality of LSRs. Even though we extract and classify the data according to these categories, we consider that elements from one category (e.g. conducting LSR) can have an impact on elements from another category (e.g. publishing LSR) and might even overlap. We will specifically extract data on the following items:
(i) Regarding the conduct of LSRs
• Inclusion criteria (change, re-evaluation)
• Search (frequency, when, database)
• Data extraction (who, frequency, tool)
• Quality and bias assessment of identified studies (who, frequency, tool)
• Data synthesis with meta-analysis if applicable (who, frequency, tool)
• Certainty of the evidence (who, frequency, tool)
(ii) Regarding the reporting of LSRs:
(iii) Regarding the publication of LSRs:
(iv) Regarding the appraisal of LSRs:
• PICO structure applied
• Methods established prior to the conduct and justification of protocol deviations
• Study selection explained
• Use of comprehensive search strategy
• Study registry search
• Ongoing studies search
• Study selection and data extraction performed in duplicate
• List of excluded studies with justification
• Description of included studies
• Adequate tool for risk of bias assessment
• Appropriate methods for meta-analysis
• Usage/handling of preprints
• Funding sources, COI
We will collect, summarize and report the extracted study data according to the predefined categories. Therefore, we will first be presenting a table with the extracted methods unique to LSRs classified into the pre-defined categories, along with the contributing sources. Second, we will develop a visual evidence map framework of these methods and map our findings against the existing standard tools (e.g. Cochrane guidance for conducting LSR, PRISMA 2020, AMSTAR 2) to determine differences and suggestions for adaptations. The evidence map and the summary table will be double-checked by a second review author. These systematically obtained findings of the scoping review could be used as basis for the revision of existing guidance and method tools for LSR, such as the PRISMA statement for instance.
Layal Hneiny, medical librarian at AUB
Ina Monsef, information specialist from the university hospital of Cologne
Screeners of related previous LSR project: Ibrahim El Mikati, Rayane El Khoury; Hector Pardo; Assem Khamis
Contributors of this scoping review protocol: Gladis Honein; Matthew Page
Views | Downloads | |
---|---|---|
F1000Research | - | - |
PubMed Central
Data from PMC are received and updated monthly.
|
- | - |
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Partly
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
References
1. Peters MDJ, Marnie C, Tricco AC, Pollock D, et al.: Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews.JBI Evid Synth. 18 (10): 2119-2126 PubMed Abstract | Publisher Full TextCompeting Interests: Member of JBI Scoping Review Methodology Group
Reviewer Expertise: Member of JBI Scoping review methodology group.
Is the rationale for, and objectives of, the study clearly described?
Yes
Is the study design appropriate for the research question?
Yes
Are sufficient details of the methods provided to allow replication by others?
Yes
Are the datasets clearly presented in a useable and accessible format?
Not applicable
Competing Interests: Zachary Munn has co-authored a paper with Elie Akl as part of a large collaborative project and has collegial relationships with some of the authors as part of common group memberships or initiatives. These relationships have had no bearing on the feedback provided and I confirm my impartiality. ZM is the co-convenor of the JBI scoping reviews methodology group and a member of the Living Evidence Network.
Reviewer Expertise: Systematic reviews, guidelines, evidence synthesis
Alongside their report, reviewers assign a status to the article:
Invited Reviewers | ||
---|---|---|
1 | 2 | |
Version 1 13 Aug 21 |
read | read |
Provide sufficient details of any financial or non-financial competing interests to enable users to assess whether your comments might lead a reasonable person to question your impartiality. Consider the following examples, but note that this is not an exhaustive list:
Sign up for content alerts and receive a weekly or monthly email with all newly published articles
Already registered? Sign in
The email address should be the one you originally registered with F1000.
You registered with F1000 via Google, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Google account password, please click here.
You registered with F1000 via Facebook, so we cannot reset your password.
To sign in, please click here.
If you still need help with your Facebook account password, please click here.
If your email address is registered with us, we will email you instructions to reset your password.
If you think you should have received this email but it has not arrived, please check your spam filters and/or contact for further assistance.
Comments on this article Comments (0)