Document Detail


Time to update and quantitative changes in the results of cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews.
MedLine Citation:
PMID:  20644625     Owner:  NLM     Status:  MEDLINE    
Abstract/OtherAbstract:
BACKGROUND: The recommended interval between updates for systematic reviews included in The Cochrane Library is 2 years. However, it is unclear whether this interval is always appropriate. Whereas excessive updating wastes time and resources, insufficient updating allows out-of-date or incomplete evidence to guide clinical decision-making. We set out to determine, for Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews, the frequency of updates, factors associated with updating, and whether updating frequency was appropriate.
METHODOLOGY/PRINCIPAL FINDINGS: Cochrane pregnancy and childbirth reviews published in Issue 3, 2007 of the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews were retrieved, and data were collected from their original and updated versions. Quantitative changes were determined for one of the primary outcomes (mortality, or the outcome of greatest clinical significance). Potential factors associated with time to update were assessed using the Cox proportional hazard model. Among the 101 reviews in our final sample, the median time before the first update was 3.3 years (95% CI 2.7-3.8). Only 32.7% had been updated within the recommended interval of 2 years. In 75.3% (76/101), a median of 3 new trials with a median of 576 additional participants were included in the updated versions. There were quantitative changes in 71% of the reviews that included new trials (54/76): the median change in effect size was 18.2%, and the median change in 95% CI width was 30.8%. Statistical significance changed in 18.5% (10/54) of these reviews, but conclusions were revised in only 3.7% (2/54). A shorter time to update was associated with the same original review team at updating.
CONCLUSIONS/SIGNIFICANCE: Most reviews were updated less frequently than recommended by Cochrane policy, but few updates had revised conclusions. Prescribed time to update should be reconsidered to support improved decision-making while making efficient use of limited resources.
Authors:
Wanlop Jaidee; David Moher; Malinee Laopaiboon
Related Documents :
9676665 - What makes a good reviewer and a good review for a general medical journal?
20224825 - The association between proximity to animal feeding operations and community health: a ...
16487455 - Comparison of conference abstracts and presentations with full-text articles in the hea...
19905035 - Assessing comparative effectiveness research in the us.
8069475 - The upper gastrointestinal endoscopy report.
2029065 - Salicylate ototoxicity: review and synthesis.
Publication Detail:
Type:  Journal Article; Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't     Date:  2010-07-13
Journal Detail:
Title:  PloS one     Volume:  5     ISSN:  1932-6203     ISO Abbreviation:  PLoS ONE     Publication Date:  2010  
Date Detail:
Created Date:  2010-07-20     Completed Date:  2010-10-28     Revised Date:  2013-05-29    
Medline Journal Info:
Nlm Unique ID:  101285081     Medline TA:  PLoS One     Country:  United States    
Other Details:
Languages:  eng     Pagination:  e11553     Citation Subset:  IM    
Affiliation:
Department of Public Health Foundation, Faculty of Public Health, Burapha University, Chonburi, Thailand.
Export Citation:
APA/MLA Format     Download EndNote     Download BibTex
MeSH Terms
Descriptor/Qualifier:
Female
Humans
Meta-Analysis as Topic*
Parturition
Pregnancy
Publishing
Review Literature as Topic*
Time Factors
Comments/Corrections

From MEDLINE®/PubMed®, a database of the U.S. National Library of Medicine


Previous Document:  Deoxygedunin, a natural product with potent neurotrophic activity in mice.
Next Document:  Treatment of hepatitis C in children: a systematic review.