Cargando…
Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare
Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , |
---|---|
Formato: | Online Artículo Texto |
Lenguaje: | English |
Publicado: |
BioMed Central
2021
|
Materias: | |
Acceso en línea: | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8650945/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34876231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01857-5 |
_version_ | 1784611307042897920 |
---|---|
author | Elbers, S. Wittink, H. Kaiser, U. Kleijnen, J. Pool, J. Köke, A. Smeets, R. |
author_facet | Elbers, S. Wittink, H. Kaiser, U. Kleijnen, J. Pool, J. Köke, A. Smeets, R. |
author_sort | Elbers, S. |
collection | PubMed |
description | Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science. |
format | Online Article Text |
id | pubmed-8650945 |
institution | National Center for Biotechnology Information |
language | English |
publishDate | 2021 |
publisher | BioMed Central |
record_format | MEDLINE/PubMed |
spelling | pubmed-86509452021-12-07 Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare Elbers, S. Wittink, H. Kaiser, U. Kleijnen, J. Pool, J. Köke, A. Smeets, R. Syst Rev Commentary Although systematic reviews are considered as central components in evidence-based practice, they currently face an important challenge to keep up with the exponential publication rate of clinical trials. After initial publication, only a minority of the systematic reviews are updated, and it often takes multiple years before these results become accessible. Consequently, many systematic reviews are not up to date, thereby increasing the time-gap between research findings and clinical practice. A potential solution is offered by a living systematic reviews approach. These types of studies are characterized by a workflow of continuous updates which decreases the time it takes to disseminate new findings. Although living systematic reviews are specifically designed to continuously synthesize new evidence in rapidly emerging topics, they have also considerable potential in slower developing domains, such as rehabilitation science. In this commentary, we outline the rationale and required steps to transition a regular systematic review into a living systematic review. We also propose a workflow that is designed for rehabilitation science. BioMed Central 2021-12-07 /pmc/articles/PMC8650945/ /pubmed/34876231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01857-5 Text en © The Author(s) 2021 https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/Open AccessThis article is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License, which permits use, sharing, adaptation, distribution and reproduction in any medium or format, as long as you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons licence, and indicate if changes were made. The images or other third party material in this article are included in the article's Creative Commons licence, unless indicated otherwise in a credit line to the material. If material is not included in the article's Creative Commons licence and your intended use is not permitted by statutory regulation or exceeds the permitted use, you will need to obtain permission directly from the copyright holder. To view a copy of this licence, visit http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/) . The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/ (https://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) ) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated in a credit line to the data. |
spellingShingle | Commentary Elbers, S. Wittink, H. Kaiser, U. Kleijnen, J. Pool, J. Köke, A. Smeets, R. Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare |
title | Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare |
title_full | Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare |
title_fullStr | Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare |
title_full_unstemmed | Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare |
title_short | Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare |
title_sort | living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science can improve evidence-based healthcare |
topic | Commentary |
url | https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC8650945/ https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/34876231 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-021-01857-5 |
work_keys_str_mv | AT elberss livingsystematicreviewsinrehabilitationsciencecanimproveevidencebasedhealthcare AT wittinkh livingsystematicreviewsinrehabilitationsciencecanimproveevidencebasedhealthcare AT kaiseru livingsystematicreviewsinrehabilitationsciencecanimproveevidencebasedhealthcare AT kleijnenj livingsystematicreviewsinrehabilitationsciencecanimproveevidencebasedhealthcare AT poolj livingsystematicreviewsinrehabilitationsciencecanimproveevidencebasedhealthcare AT kokea livingsystematicreviewsinrehabilitationsciencecanimproveevidencebasedhealthcare AT smeetsr livingsystematicreviewsinrehabilitationsciencecanimproveevidencebasedhealthcare |