Past, present and future of living systematic review: a bibliometrics analysis

Implications of living evidence formats for coverage decisions in the German health care system

Decision-makers consult systematic reviews and clinical guidelines to make informed coverage decisions based on the current state of evidence. Outdated recommendations in rapidly evolving areas such as lung cancer treatment, are challenging. The COVID-19 pandemic highlighted the need for good decision-making under uncertainty. The descriptive analysis of two samples of evidence bases for evidence synopses to prepare the decision on appropriate comparators shows that living systematic reviews and living clinical guidelines are rare (41/5,463; 0.75%) but present, with COVID-19 being the most common indication. We also describe some characteristics and quality issues of these living formats in the German context. We note an overlap between living and rapid formats, where updates may not adhere to methodological standards in evidence selection, appraisal and formulation of recommendations, or may lack transparency in their methodological processes. The need for critical appraisal of living formats is highlighted as crucial aspect. The production of living systematic reviews and clinical guidelines requires considerable resources and expertise. While there is a need for timeliness in decision making, especially in situations of high uncertainty such as the COVID-19 pandemic, the trade-off between time and quality needs to be balanced. The focus should therefore be on how best to select and process recommendations that are relevant for updating and those that are not. Regularly updated systematic reviews and clinical guidelines that adhere to recommended standards are important for decision-making bodies such as the Federal Joint Committee (G-BA). Transparent documentation of the process and methods used increases confidence in decision-making, even when the evidence base is not perfect.

The evolution and adaptation of evidence synthesis during the COVID-19 pandemic in Canada: Perspectives of evidence synthesis producers

The demand for evidence syntheses to inform urgent decision-making surged during the pandemic. The challenging circumstances of the pandemic created significant hurdles for both those requesting and creating evidence syntheses, leading to the refinement and adjustment of evidence synthesis practices. This research sought to capture and explore how the field of evidence synthesis evolved and adapted during the pandemic from the perspective of those who produced evidence syntheses in Canada. In this qualitative study, semi-structured interviews were carried out between October 2022 to January 2023. Twenty-two participants from 19 different organizations across seven provinces and one territory were interviewed. This included producers of evidence syntheses from academic institutions, not-for-profit organizations, and provincial and federal government. Data analysis was conducted thematically using a phenomenological approach. Results indicated the evidence synthesis landscape drastically changed during the pandemic including short timelines to produce syntheses and changes in the volume, types, and quality of literature included in them. Due to the changing landscape and different needs of requestors, evidence synthesis methodologies evolved, synthesis products were tailored, and quality assessment tools were adapted. In addition, the use of artificial intelligence, processes for engaging subject matter experts and patient-citizen partners, and the coordination of the evidence synthesis community changed. The findings of this study contribute to the ongoing dialogue surrounding evidence synthesis to inform decision-making, and highlights the importance of flexibility and necessity of continuously evolving methodologies to meet the demands of frequently changing landscapes. The lessons learned from this study can help inform future strategies for improving evidence synthesis practices not only in the face of public health emergencies, but also in everyday practice.

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

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.

Research on music therapy from 2013 to 2022: a bibliometric and visualized study

Background

Music therapy is a rapidly evolving multidisciplinary field. But there has been no research analyzing the latest research status and development trends in this research field from a macro perspective. We aim to identify hotspots, knowledge base, and frontiers in the field of music therapy through bibliometric analysis.

Methods

All data were retrieved from the Web of Science core database from January 1, 2013 to December 31, 2022.CiteSpace and Bibliometrix software were employed for bibliometric analysis and visualization analysis.

Results

A total of 2,397 articles were included. In the past decade, there has been a consistent increase in the number of publications. The countries and institutions with the largest production in this field are the USA and the University of London. Based on the analysis of the total number of citations, centrality, and production, the results show that the most influential journals are PLoS One and Cochrane Database Syst Rev. Keyword co-occurrence analysis and highly cited study analysis are mainly used to analyze research hotspots in the field of music therapy, while the keyword burst analysis is employed to explore frontiers and potential developmental trends. Hot keywords include "interventions", "anxiety" and "randomized controlled trial". The burst keywords include "validity", "preterm infants", and "mild cognitive impairment". In the ranking of highly cited study, the top ranked studies are "Music-based interventions in neurological rehabilitation" and "Music interventions for improving psychological and physical outcomes in cancer patients".

Conclusion

In the past decade, the research focus in music therapy was the effect of music therapy on neurological diseases and the improvement of psychological symptoms such as pain and anxiety. The neurophysiological mechanisms that bring about these therapeutic effects need to be future researched.

Characterization of research trends and prospects on hepatic echinococcosis over the past forty years: a bibliometric analysis

BACKGROUND

The distribution of hepatic echinococcosis (HE) is extensive, significantly impacting public health and economic development. Therefore, analyzing global collaboration networks and tracking developmental trends over the past four decades are crucial. This study aimed to demonstrate collaboration in the field of HE and explore key topics and future directions.

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Bibliometric analyses were conducted using CiteSpace, Bibliometrix package of R, and VOSviewer software on HE-related studies from the Web of Science Core Collection published before 1 August 2023.

RESULTS

This study identified 2605 records published in 196 journals by 9860 authors from 2607 institutes in 90 countries. Publications significantly notably increased in 2021. Developing countries like Turkey and China made notable contributions, while developed countries like the USA had higher average citation rates. The largest nodes in every cluster of the collaboration network were Hacettepe University, Tehran University, Xinjiang Medical University, Salford University, and the University of Pavia, and the top-producing authors were Wen H, Vuitton DA, Gottstein B, and Craig PS. Keyword co-occurrence analysis suggested that surgical techniques and novel drugs targeting combined immune checkpoints are the main therapeutic approaches in the future.

CONCLUSION

Although developing countries had significantly contributed to publications on HE, the citation rate for individual articles from developed countries was significantly higher. Additionally, advancements in surgical techniques and novel drugs targeting combined immune checkpoints may emerge as the next research focus and developmental direction.

Is it possible to make 'living' guidelines? An evaluation of the Australian Living Stroke Guidelines

BACKGROUND

Keeping best practice guidelines up-to-date with rapidly emerging research evidence is challenging. 'Living guidelines' approaches enable continual incorporation of new research, assisting healthcare professionals to apply the latest evidence to their clinical practice. However, information about how living guidelines are developed, maintained and applied is limited. The Stroke Foundation in Australia was one of the first organisations to apply living guideline development methods for their Living Stroke Guidelines (LSGs), presenting a unique opportunity to evaluate the process and impact of this novel approach.

METHODS

A mixed-methods study was conducted to understand the experience of LSGs developers and end-users. We used thematic analysis of one-on-one semi-structured interview and online survey data to determine the feasibility, acceptability, and facilitators and barriers of the LSGs. Website analytics data were also reviewed to understand usage.

RESULTS

Overall, the living guidelines approach was both feasible and acceptable to developers and users. Facilitators to use included collaboration with multidisciplinary clinicians and stroke survivors or carers. Increased workload for developers, workload unpredictability, and limited information sharing, and interoperability of technological platforms were identified as barriers. Users indicated increased trust in the LSGs (69%), likelihood of following the LSGs (66%), and frequency of access (58%), compared with previous static versions. Web analytics data showed individual access by 16,517 users in 2016 rising to 53,154 users in 2020, a threefold increase. There was also a fourfold increase in unique LSG pageviews from 2016 to 2020.

CONCLUSIONS

This study, the first evaluation of living guidelines, demonstrates that this approach to stroke guideline development is feasible and acceptable, that these approaches may add value to developers and users, and may increase guideline use. Future evaluations should be embedded along with guideline implementation to capture data prospectively.

Optimizing process and methods for a living systematic review: 30 search updates and three review updates later

OBJECTIVE

To describe the living systematic review (LSR) process and to share experience of planning, searches, screening, extraction, publishing and dissemination to inform and assist authors planning their own LSR. Many LSR do not publish more than one update, we hope this paper helps to increase this.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

A Cochrane LSR with an international author team that has been 'living' for two years, with monthly search updates and three full updates published in this time. LSRs are regularly updated systematic reviews that allow new evidence to be incorporated as it becomes available. LSR are ideally suited to policy-relevant topics where there is uncertainty and new evidence will likely impact the interpretation and/or certainty of outcomes.

RESULTS

The key features of the process that require consideration are: specifying the frequency of searches and triggers for full updates in the protocol; stakeholder input; publishing and disseminating monthly search findings. A strong team, incorporating methodological and topic expertise, with core members that meet regularly is essential. Regular search updates make it important to have a clear cyclical schedule of activity. To achieve timely updates this process should be streamlined, for example, using automated monthly searches, and systematic reviewing software for screening. LSR provide a unique opportunity to incorporate stakeholder feedback.

CONCLUSIONS

We recommend that LSRs should be: justified; carefully planned including the timing of search updates, triggers for publication and termination; published in a timely manner; have a clear dissemination plan; and a strong core team of authors.

A narrative review of recent tools and innovations toward automating living systematic reviews and evidence syntheses

Living reviews are an increasingly popular research paradigm. The purpose of a 'living' approach is to allow rapid collation, appraisal and synthesis of evolving evidence on an important research topic, enabling timely influence on patient care and public health policy. However, living reviews are time- and resource-intensive. The accumulation of new evidence and the possibility of developments within the review's research topic can introduce unique challenges into the living review workflow. To investigate the potential of software tools to support living systematic or rapid reviews, we present a narrative review informed by an examination of tools contained on the Systematic Review Toolbox website. We identified 11 tools with relevant functionalities and discuss the important features of these tools with respect to different steps of the living review workflow. Four tools (NestedKnowledge, SWIFT-ActiveScreener, DistillerSR, EPPI-Reviewer) covered multiple, successive steps of the review process, and the remaining tools addressed specific components of the workflow, including scoping and protocol formulation, reference retrieval, automated data extraction, write-up and dissemination of data. We identify several ways in which living reviews can be made more efficient and practical. Most of these focus on general workflow management, or automation through artificial intelligence and machine-learning, in the screening process. More sophisticated uses of automation mostly target living rapid reviews to increase the speed of production or evidence maps to broaden the scope of the map. We use a case study to highlight some of the barriers and challenges to incorporating tools into the living review workflow and processes. These include increased workload, the need for organisation, ensuring timely dissemination and challenges related to the development of bespoke automation tools to facilitate the review process. We describe how current end-user tools address these challenges, and which knowledge gaps remain that could be addressed by future tool development. Dedicated web presences for automatic dissemination of in-progress evidence updates, rather than solely relying on peer-reviewed journal publications, help to make the effort of a living evidence synthesis worthwhile. Despite offering basic living review functionalities, existing end-user tools could be further developed to be interoperable with other tools to support multiple workflow steps seamlessly, to address broader automatic evidence retrieval from a larger variety of sources, and to improve dissemination of evidence between review updates.

Methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 living systematic review: a cross-sectional study

OBJECTIVES

The main objective of this study is to evaluate the methodological quality and reporting quality of living systematic reviews (LSRs) on Coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19), while the secondary objective is to investigate potential factors that may influence the overall quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

METHODS

Six representative databases, including Medline, Excerpta Medica Database (Embase), Cochrane Library, China national knowledge infrastructure (CNKI), Wanfang Database, and China Science, Technology Journal Database (VIP) were systematically searched for COVID-19 LSRs. Two authors independently screened articles, extracted data, and then assessed the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs using the "A Measurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews-2" (AMSTAR-2) tool and "Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses" (PRISMA) 2020 statement, respectively. Univariate linear regression and multivariate linear regression were used to explore eight potential factors that might affect the methodological quality and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs.

RESULTS

A total of 64 COVID-19 LSRs were included. The AMSTAR-2 evaluation results revealed that the number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 13 ± 2.68 (mean ± standard deviation). Among them, 21.9% COVID-19 LSRs were rated as "high", 4.7% as "moderate", 23.4% as "low", and 50% as "critically low". The evaluation results of the PRISMA 2020 statement showed that the sections with poor adherence were methods, results and other information. The number of "yes" responses for each COVID-19 LSR was 21 ± 4.18 (mean ± standard deviation). The number of included studies and registration are associated with better methodological quality; the number of included studies and funding are associated with better reporting quality.

CONCLUSIONS

Improvement is needed in the methodological and reporting quality of COVID-19 LSRs. Researchers conducting COVID-19 LSRs should take note of the quality-related factors identified in this study to generate evidence-based evidence of higher quality.

Recent Advance in Clinical Practice Guideline Development Methodology

Clinical practice guidelines (CPG) can be defined as systematically developed recommendations and related content obtained by reviewing scientific evidence, which help healthcare providers make decisions. CPG is one of the most powerful tools that helps clinicians make evidence-based decisions in practice. Methodologies in areas essential for CPG development, such as for systematic review, risk of bias (ROB) assessment, adaptation, and the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development, and Evaluations, are rapidly developing. Therefore, they must be well-understood and applied to evidence-based CPG development. In this regard, it is necessary to learn about the updates and changed in the methodologies for CPG development. This manuscript covers the following CPG development methodologies: (1) main principles of CPG, (2) managing conflict of interest, (3) considering patient value and preference, (4) determination of key questions, (5) ROB assessment, (6) adaptation, (7) rapid guideline development, (8) living guideline development, and (9) GIN-McMaster Guideline Development Checklist.