Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?

Elaine M. Beller, Joyce Kee Hsin Chen, Una Li Hsiang Wang, Paul P. Glasziou

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

100 Citations (Scopus)
15 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review. A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data. Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%). Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)36
Number of pages1
JournalSystematic Reviews
Volume2
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 2013

Fingerprint

Publications
Databases
Confidence Intervals
Quality Improvement
Practice Guidelines
MEDLINE
Libraries
Research Personnel
Clinical Trials
Guidelines
Research

Cite this

Beller, Elaine M. ; Chen, Joyce Kee Hsin ; Wang, Una Li Hsiang ; Glasziou, Paul P. / Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?. In: Systematic Reviews. 2013 ; Vol. 2. pp. 36.
@article{cd250a2e62984fd9868edff9553bbd28,
title = "Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?",
abstract = "Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review. A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data. Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90{\%}) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47{\%}) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95{\%} confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95{\%} confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98{\%}) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60{\%}) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35{\%}) or four (21{\%}) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79{\%}), Cochrane library (76{\%}), and EMBASE (64{\%}). Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47{\%} of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60{\%} stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed.",
author = "Beller, {Elaine M.} and Chen, {Joyce Kee Hsin} and Wang, {Una Li Hsiang} and Glasziou, {Paul P.}",
year = "2013",
doi = "10.1186/2046-4053-2-36",
language = "English",
volume = "2",
pages = "36",
journal = "Systematic Reviews",
issn = "2046-4053",
publisher = "BMC",

}

Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication? / Beller, Elaine M.; Chen, Joyce Kee Hsin; Wang, Una Li Hsiang; Glasziou, Paul P.

In: Systematic Reviews, Vol. 2, 2013, p. 36.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticleResearchpeer-review

TY - JOUR

T1 - Are systematic reviews up-to-date at the time of publication?

AU - Beller, Elaine M.

AU - Chen, Joyce Kee Hsin

AU - Wang, Una Li Hsiang

AU - Glasziou, Paul P.

PY - 2013

Y1 - 2013

N2 - Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review. A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data. Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%). Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed.

AB - Systematic reviews provide a synthesis of evidence for practitioners, for clinical practice guideline developers, and for those designing and justifying primary research. Having an up-to-date and comprehensive review is therefore important. Our main objective was to determine the recency of systematic reviews at the time of their publication, as measured by the time from last search date to publication. We also wanted to study the time from search date to acceptance, and from acceptance to publication, and measure the proportion of systematic reviews with recorded information on search dates and information sources in the abstract and full text of the review. A descriptive analysis of published systematic reviews indexed in Medline in 2009, 2010 and 2011 by three reviewers, independently extracting data. Of the 300 systematic reviews included, 271 (90%) provided the date of search in the full-text article, but only 141 (47%) stated this in the abstract. The median (standard error; minimum to maximum) survival time from last search to acceptance was 5.1 (0.58; 0 to 43.8) months (95% confidence interval = 3.9 to 6.2) and from last search to first publication time was 8.0 (0.35; 0 to 46.7) months (95% confidence interval = 7.3 to 8.7), respectively. Of the 300 reviews, 295 (98%) stated which databases had been searched, but only 181 (60%) stated the databases in the abstract. Most researchers searched three (35%) or four (21%) databases. The top-three most used databases were MEDLINE (79%), Cochrane library (76%), and EMBASE (64%). Being able to identify comprehensive, up-to-date reviews is important to clinicians, guideline groups, and those designing clinical trials. This study demonstrates that some reviews have a considerable delay between search and publication, but only 47% of systematic review abstracts stated the last search date and 60% stated the databases that had been searched. Improvements in the quality of abstracts of systematic reviews and ways to shorten the review and revision processes to make review publication more rapid are needed.

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84886501937&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/2046-4053-2-36

DO - 10.1186/2046-4053-2-36

M3 - Article

VL - 2

SP - 36

JO - Systematic Reviews

JF - Systematic Reviews

SN - 2046-4053

ER -