Results from Cochrane’s living systematic review pilot

Session: 

Oral session: Innovative solutions to challenges of evidence production (1)

Date: 

Sunday 16 September 2018 - 14:00 to 14:20

Location: 

Fintry Auditorium

All authors in correct order:

Millard T1, Turner T1, McDonald S1, Green S1, Elliott J1, Synnot A1
1 Monash University, Melbourne, Australia
Presenting author and contact person

Presenting author:

Anneliese Synnot

Contact person:

Anneliese Synnot
Abstract text
Background: Since 2016, several Cochrane teams and others in the Living Systematic Review (LSR) Network have been piloting LSRs. Ensuring these high-quality evidence syntheses are continually up to date requires some modifications to existing authoring and editorial processes, and poses a number of technical and publishing challenges.
Objectives: To understand the experiences of those conducting LSRs and to assess the feasibility and acceptability of this new approach in order to refine future LSR production models.
Methods: A mixed-methods evaluation study is underway (completion mid-2018), comprising up to three semi-structured interviews per participant and monthly surveys. Participants include authors, search specialists, editors, publishers and other key stakeholders involved in the LSR pilots. Interviews explore participants’ experiences of conducting/contributing to LSRs and the barriers, facilitators, challenges and advantages of LSR processes. Monthly surveys, completed by key members of each pilot team, are initiated after the LSR is first published and capture time for key tasks and citations screened.
Results: The 17 participants (seven authors, three managing editors, three information specialists, and four editorial/other staff) are involved in one or more of six LSRs (three Cochrane; three non-Cochrane) Each LSR team first published a standard systematic review, before transitioning it into a frequent (‘living’) updating mode. Across the pilots, searches are running from monthly to three-monthly (monthly yield range from 2 to 154 citations), with some teams using machine learning and/or Cochrane Crowd to screen search results. There are considerable differences in approaches used to communicate updates to readers. Early results highlight: 1) overwhelming enthusiasm for involvement; 2) the importance of a motivated, efficient team to manage monthly requirements; 3) the value in using machine learning and citizen scientists to manage workflow and reduce time commitment; 4) the ongoing, continuous commitment required of an LSR and the translation of this process into a reliable, efficient operation; and 5) the potential for time and effort saving.
Conclusions: While the pilots and evaluation are ongoing, findings to date support the feasibility and acceptability of producing LSRs.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Cochrane Crowd.

Relevance to patients and consumers: 

Timely use of reliable research evidence is required for optimal health care, however there is a persistent gap between research findings and healthcare practice. As a consequence, many patients are continuing to receive sub-optimal care. Living systematic reviews offer an approach to keep high-quality evidence synthesis continually up to date, so the most recent, relevant and reliable evidence can be used to inform policy and practice, resulting in improved quality of care and patient health outcomes.