The BMJ just published an editorial about living systematic reviews worth a read, which is new territory for just about everyone bmj.com/content/370/bm…
ICYI, I have a few thoughts to share
ICYI, I have a few thoughts to share
The aim of our review is (and always was) to give an overview and appraisal of currently available diagnosis and prognosis models related to COVID-19
But this is a fast moving field: from 31 models reviewed in April to 145 models reviewed in our 2nd update published in July
But this is a fast moving field: from 31 models reviewed in April to 145 models reviewed in our 2nd update published in July
Without these updates, our review would have been outdated within a few weeks
With regularly updating -- we are working on our third update right now -- we are trying to keep up with the fast pacing COVID-19 literature
With regularly updating -- we are working on our third update right now -- we are trying to keep up with the fast pacing COVID-19 literature
BUT... updating this review is a lot of work every time by experts willing to contribute significant amounts of their time on short notice
We are fortunate with the active participation of over 40 contributors (we started with "only" 16)
We are fortunate with the active participation of over 40 contributors (we started with "only" 16)
As others noted, an author list with Twitter presence: @laure_wynants @BenVanCalster @gscollins @Richard_D_Riley @Georg__Heinze @ewoudschuit @MarcBonten @statsepi @TPA_Debray @VMTdeJong @pauladhiman @Michael_Harhay @annloh @glen_martin1 @hans_reitsma @jamiecsergeant @Kym_Snell
The efforts required to update the systematic review are easy to underestimate, as I have experienced
For one, data collection and processing (from double screening to double scoring and conflict resolution) is pretty time intensive every update
For one, data collection and processing (from double screening to double scoring and conflict resolution) is pretty time intensive every update
Besides repeating the whole data collection, a new update means updating large amounts of text, as well as considering updating our conclusions and recommendations in light of the new evidence
So far, our conclusions haven't changed much
So far, our conclusions haven't changed much
This living systematic review not just a lot of work for us (the authors)
Shout out to the editorial team of @bmj_latest and @eloder in particular for making every update as smooth as possible
Shout out to the editorial team of @bmj_latest and @eloder in particular for making every update as smooth as possible
Besides time investments, there are some challenges the editorial mentions which ring very true
To make this more concrete: every living review update does not add to a new entry on the publication lists (same title and doi). So if you are out to publish many papers (on a tenure track, maybe?): a living systematic review may not be the easiest way to achieve that
Despite the time drain, I do enjoy being part of this review and have no doubt in my mind that the work is worth doing, if only because of because it motivates studies such as this: medrxiv.org/content/10.110…
Not sure this thread was helpful to anyone. If you are interested in starting your own living review don't hesitate to seek contact: my DMs are open
