Tailored PRISMA 2020 flow diagrams for living systematic reviews: a methodological survey and a proposal

Safety and Effectiveness of COVID-19 Vaccines During Pregnancy: A Living Systematic Review and Meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Pregnant persons are susceptible to significant complications following COVID-19, even death. However, worldwide COVID-19 vaccination coverage during pregnancy remains suboptimal.

OBJECTIVE

This study assessed the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines administered to pregnant persons and shared this evidence via an interactive online website.

METHODS

We followed Cochrane methods to conduct this living systematic review. We included studies assessing the effects of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons. We conducted searches every other week for studies until October 2023, without restrictions on language or publication status, in ten databases, guidelines, preprint servers, and COVID-19 websites. The reference lists of eligible studies were hand searched to identify additional relevant studies. Pairs of review authors independently selected eligible studies using the web-based software COVIDENCE. Data extraction and risk of bias assessment were performed independently by pairs of authors. Disagreements were resolved by consensus. We performed random-effects meta-analyses of adjusted relative effects for relevant confounders of comparative studies and proportional meta-analyses to summarize frequencies from one-sample studies using R statistical software. We present the GRADE certainty of evidence from comparative studies. Findings are available on an interactive living systematic review webpage, including an updated evidence map and real-time meta-analyses customizable by subgroups and filters.

RESULTS

We included 177 studies involving 638,791 participants from 41 countries. Among the 11 types of COVID-19 vaccines identified, the most frequently used platforms were mRNA (154 studies), viral vector (51), and inactivated virus vaccines (17). Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination may result in minimal to no important differences compared to no vaccination in all assessed maternal and infant safety outcomes from 26 fewer to 17 more events per 1000 pregnant persons, and 13 fewer to 9 more events per 1000 neonates, respectively. We found statistically significant reductions in emergency cesarean deliveries (9%) with mRNA vaccines, and in stillbirth (75-83%) with mRNA/viral vector vaccines. Low to very low-certainty evidence suggests that vaccination during pregnancy with mRNA vaccines may reduce severe cases or hospitalizations in pregnant persons with COVID-19 (72%; 95% confidence interval [CI] 42-86), symptomatic COVID-19 (78%; 95% CI 21-94), and virologically confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (82%; 95% CI 39-95). Reductions were lower with other vaccine types and during Omicron variant dominance than Alpha and Delta dominance. Infants also presented with fewer severe cases or hospitalizations due to COVID-19 and laboratory-confirmed SARS-CoV-2 infection (64%; 95% CI 37-80 and 66%; 95% CI 37-81, respectively).

CONCLUSIONS

We found a large body of evidence supporting the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines during pregnancy. While the certainty of evidence is not high, it stands as the most reliable option available, given the current absence of pregnant individuals in clinical trials. Results are shared in near real time in an accessible and interactive format for scientists, decision makers, clinicians, and the general public. This living systematic review highlights the relevance of continuous vaccine safety and effectiveness monitoring, particularly in at-risk populations for COVID-19 impact such as pregnant persons, during the introduction of new vaccines.

CLINICAL TRIAL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO: CRD42021281290.

Nootropic supplements for esports

Background: esports, or organized video game competitions, have been expanding quickly. The use of dietary supplements by esports players appears vulgarized but lacks supporting evidence. Objectives: To outline studies that tested the effects of dietary supplements on video gaming, summarize their findings, highlight knowledge gaps, and recommend future research. Eligibility criteria: Clinical trials published in English between 1990 and 2023 that assessed the effects of dietary supplements on the cognitive performance of video gamers. Sources of evidence: The Web of Science, PubMed, Scopus, and Google Scholar databases. Charting methods: PRISMA's (2020) flow diagram was used to create the data chart. Results: Sixteen studies were outlined. Thirteen were randomized, thirteen applied acute interventions, ten applied a crossover design and only three weren't placebo-controlled. Of the 10 studies that included caffeine (40-200 mg), four reported significant positive effects on cognition (attention, processing speed, working memory), two on first-person shooter video gaming performance (reaction time, hit accuracy, time to hit 60 targets), and one on Tetris game score. All 3 studies that included arginine silicate (1500 mg) reported significant improvements in one or more aspects of cognition (reaction time, attention, visual representation, and spatial planning). Two studies that tested sucrose (21 and 26.8 g) didn't report significant improvements, while one study that tested 26.1 g of glucose registered significant positive effects on processing speed and sustained attention. Conclusions: The published literature has focused on the effects of caffeine, which may exert both positive and negative effects on esports players. Additional, high-quality research is needed.

A Systematic Literature Review on Inflammatory Markers in the Saliva of Patients with Multiple Sclerosis: A Cause or a Consequence of Periodontal Diseases

Background and Objectives: Multiple sclerosis (MS) is a chronic neurodegenerative disease often linked with systemic conditions such as periodontal diseases (PDs). This systematic review aims to explore the association between inflammatory markers in saliva and PDs in MS patients, assessing the use of saliva as a non-invasive tool to monitor disease progression. Materials and Methods: 82 publications were examined after a thorough search of scholarly databases to determine whether inflammatory markers were present in MS patients and whether they were associated with periodontal disease (PD). Quality and bias were assessed using the Newcastle-Ottawa Scale, resulting in eight articles that were thoroughly analyzed. Results: The results point to a strong correlation between MS and periodontal disorders, which may point to the same pathophysiological mechanism. It does, however, underscore the necessity of additional study to determine a definitive causal association. Conclusions: The findings indicate a strong association between MS and PDs, likely mediated by systemic inflammatory responses detectable in saliva. The review highlights the importance of oral health in managing MS and supports the utility of saliva as a practical, non-invasive medium for monitoring systemic inflammation. Further research is necessary to confirm the causal relationships and to consider integrating salivary diagnostics into routine clinical management for MS patients.

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.

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing, and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVE

The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. Most currently available guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing, and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but are not suitable for LSRs per se and miss additional LSR-specific considerations. In this scoping review, we aim to systematically collate methodological guidance literature on how to conduct, report, publish, and appraise the quality of LSRs and identify current gaps in guidance.

METHODS

A standard scoping review methodology was used. We searched MEDLINE (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and The Cochrane Library on August 28, 2021. As for searching gray literature, we looked for existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses. The screening was conducted by two authors independently in Rayyan, and data extraction was done in duplicate using a pilot-tested data extraction form in Excel. Data was extracted according to four pre-defined categories for (i) conducting, (ii) reporting, (iii) publishing, and (iv) appraising LSRs. We mapped the findings by visualizing overview tables created in Microsoft Word.

RESULTS

Of the 21 included papers, methodological guidance was found in 17 papers for conducting, in six papers for reporting, in 15 papers for publishing, and in two papers for appraising LSRs. Some of the identified key items for (i) conducting LSRs were identifying the rationale, screening tools, or re-revaluating inclusion criteria. Identified items of (ii) the original PRISMA checklist included reporting the registration and protocol, title, or synthesis methods. For (iii) publishing, there was guidance available on publication type and frequency or update trigger, and for (iv) appraising, guidance on the appropriate use of bias assessment or reporting funding of included studies was found. Our search revealed major evidence gaps, particularly for guidance on certain PRISMA items such as reporting results, discussion, support and funding, and availability of data and material of a LSR.

CONCLUSION

Important evidence gaps were identified for guidance on how to report in LSRs and appraise their quality. Our findings were applied to inform and prepare a PRISMA 2020 extension for LSR.

Proposed triggers for retiring a living systematic review

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are systematic reviews that are continually updated, incorporating relevant new evidence as it becomes available. LSRs are critical for decision-making in topics where the evidence continues to evolve. It is not feasible to continue to update LSRs indefinitely; however, guidance on when to retire LSRs from the living mode is not clear. We propose triggers for making such a decision. The first trigger is to retire LSRs when the evidence becomes conclusive for the outcomes that are required for decision-making. Conclusiveness of evidence is best determined based on the GRADE certainty of evidence construct, which is more comprehensive than solely relying on statistical considerations. The second trigger to retire LSRs is when the question becomes less pertinent for decision-making as determined by relevant stakeholders, including people affected by the problem, healthcare professionals, policymakers and researchers. LSRs can also be retired from a living mode when new studies are not anticipated to be published on the topic and when resources become unavailable to continue updating. We describe examples of retired LSRs and apply the proposed approach using one LSR about adjuvant tyrosine kinase inhibitors in high-risk renal cell carcinoma that we retired from a living mode and published its last update.

How to update a living systematic review and keep it alive during a pandemic: a practical guide

BACKGROUND

The covid-19 pandemic has highlighted the role of living systematic reviews. The speed of evidence generated during the covid-19 pandemic accentuated the challenges of managing high volumes of research literature.

METHODS

In this article, we summarise the characteristics of ongoing living systematic reviews on covid-19, and we follow a life cycle approach to describe key steps in a living systematic review.

RESULTS

We identified 97 living systematic reviews on covid-19, published up to 7th November 2022, which focused mostly on the effects of pharmacological interventions (n = 46, 47%) or the prevalence of associated conditions or risk factors (n = 30, 31%). The scopes of several reviews overlapped considerably. Most living systematic reviews included both observational and randomised study designs (n = 45, 46%). Only one-third of the reviews has been updated at least once (n = 34, 35%). We address practical aspects of living systematic reviews including how to judge whether to start a living systematic review, methods for study identification and selection, data extraction and evaluation, and give recommendations at each step, drawing from our own experience. We also discuss when it is time to stop and how to publish updates.

CONCLUSIONS

Methods to improve the efficiency of searching, study selection, and data extraction using machine learning technologies are being developed, their performance and applicability, particularly for reviews based on observational study designs should improve, and ways of publishing living systematic reviews and their updates will continue to evolve. Finally, knowing when to end a living systematic review is as important as knowing when to start.

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.

Trace amine-associated receptor 1 (TAAR1) agonists for psychosis: protocol for a living systematic review and meta-analysis of human and non-human studies

BACKGROUND

There is an urgent need to develop more effective and safer antipsychotics beyond dopamine 2 receptor antagonists. An emerging and promising approach is TAAR1 agonism. Therefore, we will conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis to synthesize and triangulate the evidence from preclinical animal experiments and clinical studies on the efficacy, safety, and underlying mechanism of action of TAAR1 agonism for psychosis.

METHODS

Independent searches will be conducted in multiple electronic databases to identify clinical and animal experimental studies comparing TAAR1 agonists with licensed antipsychotics or other control conditions in individuals with psychosis or animal models for psychosis, respectively. The primary outcomes will be overall psychotic symptoms and their behavioural proxies in animals. Secondary outcomes will include side effects and neurobiological measures. Two independent reviewers will conduct study selection, data extraction using predefined forms, and risk of bias assessment using suitable tools based on the study design. Ontologies will be developed to facilitate study identification and data extraction. Data from clinical and animal studies will be synthesized separately using random-effects meta-analysis if appropriate, or synthesis without meta-analysis. Study characteristics will be investigated as potential sources of heterogeneity. Confidence in the evidence for each outcome and source of evidence will be evaluated, considering the summary of the association, potential concerns regarding internal and external validity, and reporting biases. When multiple sources of evidence are available for an outcome, an overall conclusion will be drawn in a triangulation meeting involving a multidisciplinary team of experts. We plan trimonthly updates of the review, and any modifications in the protocol will be documented. The review will be co-produced by multiple stakeholders aiming to produce impactful and relevant results and bridge the gap between preclinical and clinical research on psychosis.

PROTOCOL REGISTRATION

PROSPERO-ID: CRD42023451628.

Pragmatic and open science-based solution to a current problem in the reporting of living systematic reviews

Living systematic reviews (LSRs) are an increasingly common approach to keeping reviews up to date, in which new relevant studies are incorporated as they become available, so as to inform healthcare policy and practice in a timely manner. While journal publishers have been exploring the publication of LSRs using different updating and publishing approaches, readers cannot currently assess if the evidence underpinning a published LSR is up to date, as neither the search details, the selection process, nor the list of identified studies is made available between the publication of updates. We describe a new method to transparently report the living evidence surveillance process that occurs between published LSR versions. We use the example of the living Cochrane Review on nirmatrelvir combined with ritonavir (Paxlovid) for preventing and treating COVID-19 to illustrate how this can work in practice. We created a publicly accessible spreadsheet on the Open Science Framework platform, linking to the living Cochrane Review, that details the search and study selection process, enabling readers to track the progress of eligible ongoing or completed studies. Further automation of the evidence surveillance process should be explored.

Safety, immunogenicity, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons: A protocol for systematic review and meta analysis

INTRODUCTION

Numerous vaccines have been evaluated and approved for coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). Since pregnant persons have been excluded from most clinical trials of COVID-19 vaccines, sufficient data regarding the safety of these vaccines for the pregnant person and their fetus have rarely been available at the time of product licensure. However, as COVID-19 vaccines have been deployed, data on the safety, reactogenicity, immunogenicity, and efficacy of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and neonates are becoming increasingly available. A living systematic review and meta-analysis of the safety and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons and newborns could provide the information necessary to help guide vaccine policy decisions.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

We aim to conduct a living systematic review and meta-analysis based on biweekly searches of medical databases (e.g., MEDLINE, EMBASE, CENTRAL) and clinical trial registries to systematically identify relevant studies of COVID-19 vaccines for pregnant persons. Pairs of reviewers will independently select, extract data, and conduct risk of bias assessments. We will include randomized clinical trials, quasi-experimental studies, cohort, case-control, cross-sectional studies, and case reports. Primary outcomes will be the safety, efficacy, and effectiveness of COVID-19 vaccines in pregnant persons, including neonatal outcomes. Secondary outcomes will be immunogenicity and reactogenicity. We will conduct paired meta-analyses, including prespecified subgroup and sensitivity analyses. We will use the grading of recommendations assessment, development, and evaluation approach to evaluate the certainty of evidence.

Conceptualizing the reporting of living systematic reviews

OBJECTIVES

As part of an effort to develop an extension of the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 statement for living systematic reviews (LSRs), we discuss conceptual issues relevant to the reporting of LSRs and highlight a few challenges.

METHODS

Discussion of conceptual issues based on a scoping review of the literature and discussions among authors.

RESULTS

We first briefly describe aspects of the LSR production process relevant to reporting. The production cycles differ by whether the literature surveillance identifies new evidence and whether newly identified evidence is judged to be consequential. This impacts the timing, content, and format of LSR versions. Second, we discuss four types of information that are specific to the reporting of LSRs: justification for adopting the living mode, LSR specific methods, changes between LSR versions, and LSR updating status. We also discuss the challenge of conveying changes between versions to the reader. Third, we describe two commonly used reporting formats of LSRs: full and partial reports. Although partial reports are easier to produce and publish, they lead to the scattering of information across different versions. Full reports ensure the completeness of reporting. We discuss the implications for the extension of the PRISMA 2020 statement for LSRs.

CONCLUSION

We argue that a dynamic publication platform would facilitate complete and timely reporting of LSRs.

Methods for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Identify currently methodological aspects proposed for planning, conducting, and reporting living evidence (LE) synthesis. Develop a preliminary checklist of key LE synthesis elements.

METHODS

A survey of methodological articles describing or analyzing methods for the design, conduction, or reporting of LE synthesis.

RESULTS

Twelve methodological articles were identified and analyzed. Key elements were related to: i) definition of LE and characteristics of LE synthesis, ii) methods and tools for the living process, iii) new evidence integration (methods and considerations), iv) updates dissemination and publication, v) revisiting living parameters, and vi) protocol considerations for LE synthesis.

CONCLUSION

This survey displays basic methodological concepts that can drive the development of LE synthesis and identifies specific aspects with opportunities for development. The potential impact of the LE approach calls for a change in the current evidence synthesis updating processes to more open, collaborative, transparent, and efficient systems. LE approaches also challenge journal editors to shift toward more efficient processes for synthesis update dissemination, which minimizes the risks of reliability of published information.

Community engagement to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake: a living systematic review protocol

INTRODUCTION

Widespread vaccination against COVID-19 is one of the most effective ways to control, and ideally, end the global COVID-19 pandemic. Vaccine hesitancy and vaccine rates vary widely across countries and populations and are influenced by complex sociocultural, political, economic and psychological factors. Community engagement is an integral strategy within immunisation campaigns and has been shown to improve vaccine acceptance. As evidence on community engagement to support COVID-19 vaccine uptake is emerging and constantly changing, research that lessens the knowledge-to-practice gap by providing regular and up-to-date evidence on current best-practice is essential.

METHODS AND ANALYSIS

A living systematic review will be conducted which includes an initial systematic review and bimonthly review updates. Searching and screening for the review and subsequent updates will be done in four streams: a systematic search of six databases, grey literature review, preprint review and citizen sourcing. The screening will be done by a minimum of two reviewers at title/abstract and full-text in Covidence, a systematic review management software. Data will be extracted across predefined fields in an excel spreadsheet that includes information about article characteristics, context and population, community engagement approaches, and outcomes. Synthesis will occur using the convergent integrated approach. We will explore the potential to quantitatively synthesise primary outcomes depending on heterogeneity of the studies.

ETHICS AND DISSEMINATION

The initial review and subsequent bimonthly searches and their results will be disseminated transparently via open-access methods. Quarterly briefs will be shared on the reviews' social media platforms and across other interested networks and repositories. A dedicated web link will be created on the Community Health-Community of Practice site for sharing findings and obtaining feedback. A mailing list will be developed and interested parties can subscribe for updates.

PROSPERO REGISTRATION NUMBER

CRD42022301996.

Occurrence and transmission potential of asymptomatic and presymptomatic SARS-CoV-2 infections: Update of a living systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Debate about the level of asymptomatic Severe Acute Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection continues. The amount of evidence is increasing and study designs have changed over time. We updated a living systematic review to address 3 questions: (1) Among people who become infected with SARS-CoV-2, what proportion does not experience symptoms at all during their infection? (2) What is the infectiousness of asymptomatic and presymptomatic, compared with symptomatic, SARS-CoV-2 infection? (3) What proportion of SARS-CoV-2 transmission in a population is accounted for by people who are asymptomatic or presymptomatic?

METHODS AND FINDINGS

The protocol was first published on 1 April 2020 and last updated on 18 June 2021. We searched PubMed, Embase, bioRxiv, and medRxiv, aggregated in a database of SARS-CoV-2 literature, most recently on 6 July 2021. Studies of people with PCR-diagnosed SARS-CoV-2, which documented symptom status at the beginning and end of follow-up, or mathematical modelling studies were included. Studies restricted to people already diagnosed, of single individuals or families, or without sufficient follow-up were excluded. One reviewer extracted data and a second verified the extraction, with disagreement resolved by discussion or a third reviewer. Risk of bias in empirical studies was assessed with a bespoke checklist and modelling studies with a published checklist. All data syntheses were done using random effects models. Review question (1): We included 130 studies. Heterogeneity was high so we did not estimate a mean proportion of asymptomatic infections overall (interquartile range (IQR) 14% to 50%, prediction interval 2% to 90%), or in 84 studies based on screening of defined populations (IQR 20% to 65%, prediction interval 4% to 94%). In 46 studies based on contact or outbreak investigations, the summary proportion asymptomatic was 19% (95% confidence interval (CI) 15% to 25%, prediction interval 2% to 70%). (2) The secondary attack rate in contacts of people with asymptomatic infection compared with symptomatic infection was 0.32 (95% CI 0.16 to 0.64, prediction interval 0.11 to 0.95, 8 studies). (3) In 13 modelling studies fit to data, the proportion of all SARS-CoV-2 transmission from presymptomatic individuals was higher than from asymptomatic individuals. Limitations of the evidence include high heterogeneity and high risks of selection and information bias in studies that were not designed to measure persistently asymptomatic infection, and limited information about variants of concern or in people who have been vaccinated.

CONCLUSIONS

Based on studies published up to July 2021, most SARS-CoV-2 infections were not persistently asymptomatic, and asymptomatic infections were less infectious than symptomatic infections. Summary estimates from meta-analysis may be misleading when variability between studies is extreme and prediction intervals should be presented. Future studies should determine the asymptomatic proportion of SARS-CoV-2 infections caused by variants of concern and in people with immunity following vaccination or previous infection. Without prospective longitudinal studies with methods that minimise selection and measurement biases, further updates with the study types included in this living systematic review are unlikely to be able to provide a reliable summary estimate of the proportion of asymptomatic infections caused by SARS-CoV-2.

REVIEW PROTOCOL

Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/9ewys/).

Methods and guidance on conducting, reporting, publishing and appraising living systematic reviews: a scoping review protocol

Background: The living systematic review (LSR) approach is based on an ongoing surveillance of the literature and continual updating. A few guidance documents address the conduct, reporting, publishing and appraisal of systematic reviews (SRs), but the methodology described is either not up-to date or not suitable for LSRs and misses additional LSR-specific considerations. 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 and identify related gaps. 

Methods: To achieve our objectives, we will conduct a scoping review to survey and evaluate existing evidence, using the standard scoping review methodology. We will search MEDLINE, EMBASE, and Cochrane 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. As for searching grey literature, we will seek existing guidelines and handbooks on LSRs from organizations that conduct evidence syntheses using the Lens.org website. Two review authors will extract and catalogue the study data on LSR methodological aspects into a standardized and pilot-tested data extraction form. The main categories will reflect proposed methods for (i) conducting LSRs, (ii) reporting of LSRs, (iii) publishing and (iv) appraising the quality of LSRs.

Data synthesis and conclusion: By collecting these data from methodological surveys and papers, as well as existing guidance documents and handbooks on LSRs, we might identify specific issues and components lacking within current LSR methodology. Thus, the systematically obtained findings of the scoping review could be used as basis for the revision of existing methods tools on LSR, for instance a PRISMA statement extension for LSRs.

Barriers and facilitators to implementing practices for prevention of childhood obesity in primary care: A mixed methods systematic review

Primary care providers (PCPs) have an important role in prevention of excess weight gain in pre-school children. Guidelines exist to support PCPs' practices. This systematic review of PCPs' practice behaviors and their perceptions of barriers to and facilitators of implementation of guidelines was the first step toward the development of an intervention aimed at supporting PCPs. Five databases were searched to identify qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods studies which examined PCPs' practice patterns and factors influencing implementation of recommended practices. The convergent integrated approach of the Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) methodology for mixed methods reviews was used for data synthesis. Following analyses, the resultant factors were mapped onto the Capability, Opportunity, and Motivation model of Behaviour (COM-B). Fifty studies met the eligibility criteria. PCPs inconsistently implement recommended practices. Barriers and facilitators were identified at the provider (e.g., lack of knowledge), parent (e.g., lack motivation), and organization level (e.g., inadequate training). Factors were mapped to all three components of the COM-B model: psychological capability (e.g., lack of skills), reflective motivation (e.g., beliefs about guidelines), automatic motivation (e.g., discomfort), physical opportunity (e.g., time constraints), and social opportunity (e.g., stigma). These findings reflect the complexity of implementation of childhood obesity prevention practices.

Methodological approaches for developing and reporting living evidence synthesis: a study protocol

Background: Living evidence (LE) refers to the methodological processes that permit new research findings to be continually incorporated into evidence synthesis. This approach is of great value in the resolution of relevant and rapidly changing clinical questions. To date, the methods to carry out this type of synthesis are not completely defined, and great variability is observed in the approaches used by different groups of authors. Objective: To identify, evaluate and summarise the current methods used for living evidence synthesis Methods: We will conduct a methodological study based on a systematic literature search to identify any type of evidence synthesis such as systematic reviews, network metanalyses and overviews that used "living evidence synthesis" as part of their methods. The search will be conducted in Medline (via PubMed) and Epistemonikos databases. Additionally, we will search websites of the organisations publishing any living evidence synthesis retrieved in the two databases, in order to identify unpublished subsequent reports. Two reviewers will independently assess each article against the selection criteria, extract data on methods and procedures, and assess the methodological quality of each publication. Data will be analysed descriptively.

Data extraction methods for systematic review (semi)automation: Update of a living systematic review

Background: The reliable and usable (semi)automation of data extraction can support the field of systematic review by reducing the workload required to gather information about the conduct and results of the included studies. This living systematic review examines published approaches for data extraction from reports of clinical studies. Methods: We systematically and continually search PubMed, ACL Anthology, arXiv, OpenAlex via EPPI-Reviewer, and the  dblp computer science bibliography. Full text screening and data extraction are conducted within an open-source living systematic review application created for the purpose of this review. This living review update includes publications up to December 2022 and OpenAlex content up to March 2023. Results: 76 publications are included in this review. Of these, 64 (84%) of the publications addressed extraction of data from abstracts, while 19 (25%) used full texts. A total of 71 (93%) publications developed classifiers for randomised controlled trials. Over 30 entities were extracted, with PICOs (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) being the most frequently extracted. Data are available from 25 (33%), and code from 30 (39%) publications. Six (8%) implemented publicly available tools Conclusions: This living systematic review presents an overview of (semi)automated data-extraction literature of interest to different types of literature review. We identified a broad evidence base of publications describing data extraction for interventional reviews and a small number of publications extracting epidemiological or diagnostic accuracy data. Between review updates, trends for sharing data and code increased strongly: in the base-review, data and code were available for 13 and 19% respectively, these numbers increased to 78 and 87% within the 23 new publications. Compared with the base-review, we observed another research trend, away from straightforward data extraction and towards additionally extracting relations between entities or automatic text summarisation. With this living review we aim to review the literature continually.