Living Systematic Reviews: An Emerging Opportunity to Narrow the Evidence-Practice Gap

1. (2005) Bridging the “know-do” gap: meeting on knowledge translation in global health. Geneva: World Health Organization.

2. GrimshawJM, EcclesMP, LavisJN, HillSJ, SquiresJE (2012) Knowledge translation of research findings. Implement Sci 7: 50.

3. Institute of Medicine (2011) Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Washington (D.C.): National Academies Press.

4. MoherD, LiberatiA, TetzlaffJ, AltmanDG (2009) Group P (2009) Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Med 6: e1000097.

5. Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) (2013) Available: http://www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir. Accessed 8 November, 2013.

6. SampsonM, ShojaniaKG, GarrittyC, HorsleyT, OcampoM, et al. (2008) Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. J Clin Epidemiol 61: 531–536.

7. BraggeP, ClavisiO, TurnerT, TavenderE, CollieA, et al. (2011) The global evidence mapping initiative: scoping research in broad topic areas. BMC Med Res Methodol 11: 92.

8. JadadAR, CookDJ, JonesA, KlassenTP, TugwellP, et al. (1998) Methodology and reports of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: a comparison of Cochrane reviews with articles published in paper-based journals. JAMA 280: 278–280.

9. ShojaniaKG, SampsonM, AnsariMT, JiJ, DoucetteS, et al. (2007) How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med 147: 224–233.

10. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A, Tricco AC, Eccles M, Grimshaw J, et al.. (2008) When and how to update systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev: MR000023.

11. PattanittumP, LaopaiboonM, MoherD, LumbiganonP, NgamjarusC (2012) A comparison of statistical methods for identifying out-of-date systematic reviews. PLoS ONE 7: e48894.

12. BastianH, GlasziouP, ChalmersI (2010) Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: how will we ever keep up? PLoS Med 7: e1000326.

13. ChalmersI (1986) Electronic publications for updating controlled trial reviews. Lancet 328: 287.

14. BerkeyCS, MostellerF, LauJ, AntmanEM (1996) Uncertainty of the time of first significance in random effects cumulative meta-analysis. Control Clin Trials 17: 357–371.

15. IoannidisJ, LauJ (2001) Evolution of treatment effects over time: empirical insight from recursive cumulative metaanalyses. Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A 98: 831–836.

16. WetterslevJ, ThorlundK, BrokJ, GluudC (2008) Trial sequential analysis may establish when firm evidence is reached in cumulative meta-analysis. J Clin Epidemiol 61: 64–75.

17. HigginsJP, WhiteheadA, SimmondsM (2011) Sequential methods for random-effects meta-analysis. Stat Med 30: 903–921.

18. SpieglehalterD (2004) Incorporating Bayesian ideas into health-care evaluation. Statist Sci 19: 156–174.

19. TurnerRM, DaveyJ, ClarkeMJ, ThompsonSG, HigginsJP (2012) Predicting the extent of heterogeneity in meta-analysis, using empirical data from the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. Int J Epidemiol 41: 818–827.

20. Wetterstrand K (2013) DNA Sequencing costs: data from the NHGRI Genome Sequencing Program (GSP). Available: http://www.genome.gov/sequencingcosts. Accessed 11 July 2013.

21. TriccoAC, BrehautJ, ChenMH, MoherD (2008) Following 411 Cochrane protocols to completion: a retrospective cohort study. PLoS ONE 3: e3684.

22. Elliott J (2012) Exploiting innovations in technology to improve the efficiency of review production. 20th Cochrane Colloquium. Auckland.

23. Ciapponi A, Glujovsky D (2012) Survey among Cochrane authors about early stages of systematic reviews. In: Proceedings of the 20th Cochrane Colloquium; 30 September–3 October 2012 Auckland, New Zealand

24. ElliottJ, MavergamesC, BeckerL, MeerpohlJ, ThomasJ, et al. (2013) The efficient production of high quality evidence reviews is important for the public good. BMJ 346: f846.

25. ThomasJ, McNaughtJ, AnaniadouS (2011) Applications of text mining within systematic reviews. Research Synthesis Methods 2: 1–14.

26. Thomas J, Brunton J (2010) EPPI-Reviewer 4.0: software for research synthesis. London: Social Science Research Unit, Institute of Education.

27. WallaceB, TrikalinosT, LauJ, BrodleyC, SchmidC (2010) Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics 11: 55.

28. WallaceBC, SmallK, BrodleyCE, LauJ, SchmidCH, et al. (2012) Toward modernizing the systematic review pipeline in genetics: efficient updating via data mining. Genet Med 14: 663–669.

29. BoothA, ClarkeM, DooleyG, GhersiD, MoherD, et al. (2013) PROSPERO at one year: an evaluation of its utility. Systematic Reviews 2: 4.

30. (2013) SRDR: Systematic Review Data Repository. Available: http://srdr.ahrq.gov/. Accessed 8 November 2013.

31. (2013) Cochrane Register of Studies. Available: http://www.metaxis.com/CRSSoftwarePortal/Index.asp. Accessed 8 November 2013.

32. (2013) Cochrane Reviews Ontology. Available: http://www.cochrane.org/sites/default/files/cochrane-ontology.html. Accessed 8 November 2013.

33. (2013) OCRe: The Ontology of Clinical Research. Available: http://rctbank.ucsf.edu/home/ocre. Accessed 8 November 2013.

34. McGee R, Willis N, Jones A, Higgins G, Craig J, et al.. (2012) Factors associated with the timely completion of a Cochrane review. In: Proceedings of the 20th Cochrane Colloquium; 30 September–3 October 2012Auckland, New Zealand

35. SungNS, CrowleyWF, GenelM, SalberP, SandyL, et al. (2003) Central challenges facing the national clinical research enterprise. JAMA 289: 1278–1287.

36. LavisJ, DaviesH, OxmanA, DenisJL, Golden-BiddleK, et al. (2005) Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making. J Health Serv Res Policy 10 Suppl 135–48.

37. ColbyDC, QuinnBC, WilliamsCH, BilheimerLT, GoodellS (2008) Research glut and information famine: making research evidence more useful for policymakers. Health Aff (Millwood) 27: 1177–1182.

38. Noel-Storr A, Struthers C, Huckvale C, Dooley G, McShane R (2012) ALOIS, ScreenToGo and the Cochrane Register of Studies: using mobile technology to engage and involve consumers in the work of the Cochrane Collaboration. In: Proceedings of the 20th Cochrane Colloquium; 30 September–3 October 2012Auckland, New Zealand.

39. What is the Human Variome Project? Nat Genet 39: 423.

40. GiardineB, BorgJ, HiggsDR, PetersonKR, PhilipsenS, et al. (2011) Systematic documentation and analysis of human genetic variation in hemoglobinopathies using the microattribution approach. Nat Genet 43: 295–301.

41. MonsB, van HaagenH, ChichesterC, HoenPB, den DunnenJT, et al. (2011) The value of data. Nat Genet 43: 281–283.

42. US Food and Drug Administration (2013) Study data standards for regulatory submissions: position statement. Available: http://www.fda.gov/ForIndustry/DataStandards/StudyDataStandards/ucm368613.htm. Accessed 8 November 2013.

43. Brandt L, Kristiansen A, Guyatt G, Vandvik P (2012) Providing likeable and understandable guidelines using GRADE in the EMR with direct links to individual patient data. Phase 1. In: Proceedings of the 9th Guidelines International Network Conference; 22–25 August 2012Berlin, Germany.