Skip to main content
Top
Published in: Systematic Reviews 1/2019

Open Access 01-12-2019 | Human Immunodeficiency Virus | Letter

Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews

Authors: Ingrid Eshun-Wilson, Shahista Jaffer, Rhodine Smith, Samuel Johnson, Paul Hine, Alberto Mateo, Anne-Marie Stephani, Paul Garner

Published in: Systematic Reviews | Issue 1/2019

Login to get access

Abstract

Background

Research turnover in the HIV field is rapid, and as a result, maintaining high-quality, up-to-date, and relevant systematic reviews is a challenge. One approach is to frequently update published reviews.

Methods

We evaluated the methods and relevance of all HIV systematic reviews and protocols published in the Cochrane Library over a 16-year period (2000–2016) to determine the need to update published reviews or complete of reviews in progress.

Results

Of 148 published reviews and protocols, 129 (87%) were identified as not for updating or progression to publication, mostly due to research questions which were either entirely outdated or addressed questions in an outdated manner (N = 89; 60%); this was anticipated for older reviews, but was found also to be the case for recent publications. Some research questions were also inadequately conceptualized, particularly when complex pragmatic trials or behavioral interventions were included.

Conclusions

We suggest that authors clearly characterize interventions and synthesis approaches in their review protocols. In research fields, such as HIV, where questions change frequently, systematic reviews and protocols should be regularly re-evaluated to ensure relevance to current questions. This process of re-evaluation should be incorporated into the methods of living systematic reviews.
Appendix
Available only for authorised users
Literature
2.
go back to reference Higgins J, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Churchill R. Standards for the conduct and reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, reporting of protocols and the planning, conduct and reporting of updates. 2018. Version 1.07. Accessed at: https://community.cochrane.org/mecir-manual. Higgins J, Lasserson T, Chandler J, Tovey D, Churchill R. Standards for the conduct and reporting of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, reporting of protocols and the planning, conduct and reporting of updates. 2018. Version 1.07. Accessed at: https://​community.​cochrane.​org/​mecir-manual.
6.
go back to reference O’Connor AM, Tsafnat G, Gilbert SB, Thayer KA, Wolfe MS. Moving toward the automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the second meeting of International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):3 https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-017-0667-4.CrossRef O’Connor AM, Tsafnat G, Gilbert SB, Thayer KA, Wolfe MS. Moving toward the automation of the systematic review process: a summary of discussions at the second meeting of International Collaboration for the Automation of Systematic Reviews (ICASR). Syst Rev. 2018;7(1):3 https://​doi.​org/​10.​1186/​s13643-017-0667-4.CrossRef
Metadata
Title
Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews
Authors
Ingrid Eshun-Wilson
Shahista Jaffer
Rhodine Smith
Samuel Johnson
Paul Hine
Alberto Mateo
Anne-Marie Stephani
Paul Garner
Publication date
01-12-2019
Publisher
BioMed Central
Published in
Systematic Reviews / Issue 1/2019
Electronic ISSN: 2046-4053
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1186/s13643-019-0960-5

Other articles of this Issue 1/2019

Systematic Reviews 1/2019 Go to the issue