IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0011553.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Time to Update and Quantitative Changes in the Results of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Reviews

Author

Listed:
  • Wanlop Jaidee
  • David Moher
  • Malinee Laopaiboon

Abstract

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 Whereas excessive updating wastes time and resources, insufficient updating allows out-of-date or incomplete evidence to guide clinical decision-making.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.

Suggested Citation

  • Wanlop Jaidee & David Moher & Malinee Laopaiboon, 2010. "Time to Update and Quantitative Changes in the Results of Cochrane Pregnancy and Childbirth Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(7), pages 1-7, July.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0011553
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0011553
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011553
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0011553&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0011553?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. David Moher & Jennifer Tetzlaff & Andrea C Tricco & Margaret Sampson & Douglas G Altman, 2007. "Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 4(3), pages 1-9, March.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Neal R. Haddaway & Matthew J. Page & Chris C. Pritchard & Luke A. McGuinness, 2022. "PRISMA2020: An R package and Shiny app for producing PRISMA 2020‐compliant flow diagrams, with interactivity for optimised digital transparency and Open Synthesis," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 18(2), June.
    2. Giuseppe La Torre & Remigio Bova & Rosario Andrea Cocchiara & Cristina Sestili & Anna Tagliaferri & Simona Maggiacomo & Camilla Foschi & William Zomparelli & Maria Vittoria Manai & David Shaholli & Va, 2023. "What Are the Determinants of the Quality of Systematic Reviews in the International Journals of Occupational Medicine? A Methodological Study Review of Published Literature," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 20(2), pages 1-12, January.
    3. Nikolaos Pandis & Padhraig S Fleming & Helen Worthington & Kerry Dwan & Georgia Salanti, 2015. "Discrepancies in Outcome Reporting Exist Between Protocols and Published Oral Health Cochrane Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(9), pages 1-10, September.
    4. João Carlos Belloti & Aldo Okamura & Jordana Scheeren & Flávio Faloppa & Vinícius Ynoe de Moraes, 2019. "A systematic review of the quality of distal radius systematic reviews: Methodology and reporting assessment," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 14(1), pages 1-12, January.
    5. Hansen, Henrik & Trifkovic, Neda, 2013. "Systematic Reviews: Questions, Methods and Usage," MPRA Paper 47993, University Library of Munich, Germany.
    6. Jamie J Kirkham & Doug G Altman & Paula R Williamson, 2010. "Bias Due to Changes in Specified Outcomes during the Systematic Review Process," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 5(3), pages 1-5, March.
    7. Andrea C Tricco & Jamie Brehaut & Maggie H Chen & David Moher, 2008. "Following 411 Cochrane Protocols to Completion: A Retrospective Cohort Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 3(11), pages 1-6, November.
    8. Yali Liu & Rui Zhang & Jiao Huang & Xu Zhao & Danlu Liu & Wanting Sun & Yuefen Mai & Peng Zhang & Yajun Wang & Hua Cao & Ke hu Yang, 2014. "Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews/Meta-Analyses of Acupuncture," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(11), pages 1-7, November.
    9. Matthew J Page & Joanne E McKenzie & Patrick M Bossuyt & Isabelle Boutron & Tammy C Hoffmann & Cynthia D Mulrow & Larissa Shamseer & Jennifer M Tetzlaff & Elie A Akl & Sue E Brennan & Roger Chou & Jul, 2021. "The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews," PLOS Medicine, Public Library of Science, vol. 18(3), pages 1-15, March.
    10. Lucy Turner & James Galipeau & Chantelle Garritty & Eric Manheimer & L Susan Wieland & Fatemeh Yazdi & David Moher, 2013. "An Evaluation of Epidemiological and Reporting Characteristics of Complementary and Alternative Medicine (CAM) Systematic Reviews (SRs)," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 8(1), pages 1-11, January.
    11. Osnat Wine & Alvaro Osornio Vargas & Sandra M. Campbell & Vahid Hosseini & Charles Robert Koch & Mahdi Shahbakhti, 2022. "Cold Climate Impact on Air-Pollution-Related Health Outcomes: A Scoping Review," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 19(3), pages 1-17, January.
    12. Jana Schellinger & Kerry Sewell & Jamie E Bloss & Tristan Ebron & Carrie Forbes, 2021. "The effect of librarian involvement on the quality of systematic reviews in dental medicine," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 16(9), pages 1-16, September.
    13. Lisa Hartling & Michele P Hamm & Ricardo M Fernandes & Donna M Dryden & Ben Vandermeer, 2014. "Quantifying Bias in Randomized Controlled Trials in Child Health: A Meta-Epidemiological Study," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(2), pages 1-6, February.
    14. Tina Ljungberg & Emma Bondza & Connie Lethin, 2020. "Evidence of the Importance of Dietary Habits Regarding Depressive Symptoms and Depression," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 17(5), pages 1-18, March.
    15. Xiaoqin Wang & Vivian Welch & Meixuan Li & Liang Yao & Julia Littell & Huijuan Li & Nan Yang & Jianjian Wang & Larissa Shamseer & Yaolong Chen & Kehu Yang & Jeremy M. Grimshaw, 2021. "The methodological and reporting characteristics of Campbell reviews: A systematic review," Campbell Systematic Reviews, John Wiley & Sons, vol. 17(1), March.
    16. Xiu-xia, Li & Ya, Zheng & Yao-long, Chen & Ke-hu, Yang & Zong-jiu, Zhang, 2015. "The reporting characteristics and methodological quality of Cochrane reviews about health policy research," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 119(4), pages 503-510.
    17. Laura Sheble, 2017. "Macro‐level diffusion of a methodological knowledge innovation: Research synthesis methods, 1972–2011," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(12), pages 2693-2708, December.
    18. Porjai Pattanittum & Malinee Laopaiboon & David Moher & Pisake Lumbiganon & Chetta Ngamjarus, 2012. "A Comparison of Statistical Methods for Identifying Out-of-Date Systematic Reviews," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(11), pages 1-6, November.
    19. Yafang Huang & Chen Mao & Jinqiu Yuan & Zuyao Yang & Mengyang Di & Wilson Wai-san Tam & Jinling Tang, 2014. "Distribution and Epidemiological Characteristics of Published Individual Patient Data Meta-Analyses," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(6), pages 1-8, June.
    20. Jeroen P M Peters & Lotty Hooft & Wilko Grolman & Inge Stegeman, 2015. "Reporting Quality of Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Otorhinolaryngologic Articles Based on the PRISMA Statement," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 10(8), pages 1-11, August.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0011553. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.