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

Simple item page
dc.contributor.authorEshun-Wilson, Ingriden_ZA
dc.contributor.authorJaffer, Shahistaen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorSmith, Rhodineen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorJohnson, Samuelen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorHine, Paulen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorMateo, Albertoen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorStephani, Anne-Marieen_ZA
dc.contributor.authorGarner, Paulen_ZA
dc.date.accessioned2021-11-15T13:13:29Z
dc.date.available2021-11-15T13:13:29Z
dc.date.issued2019
dc.descriptionCITATION: Eshun-Wilson, I. et al. Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews. Systematic Reviews, 8(46). doi:10.1186/s13643-019-0960-5
dc.descriptionThe original publication is available at https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/about
dc.description.abstractBackground: 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 (2000ā€“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as not for updating or progression to publication, mostly due to research questions which were either entirely outdated or addressed questions in an outdated manner (Nā€‰=ā€‰89; 60%); this was anticipated for older reviews, but was found also to be the case for recent publications.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.en_ZA
dc.description.urihttps://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s13643-019-0960-5
dc.description.versionPublisherā€™s version
dc.format.extent4 pages ; illustrations
dc.identifier.citationEshun-Wilson, I. et al. Maintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews: an evaluation of Cochrane reviews. Systematic Reviews, 8(46). doi:10.1186/s13643-019-0960-5
dc.identifier.issn2046-4053 (online)
dc.identifier.otherdoi:10.1186/s13643-019-0960-5
dc.identifier.urihttp://hdl.handle.net/10019.1/123459
dc.language.isoen_ZAen_ZA
dc.publisherBMC
dc.rights.holderAuthors retain copyright
dc.subjectHIV (Viruses) -- Researchen_ZA
dc.subjectSystematic reviews (Medical research)en_ZA
dc.titleMaintaining relevance in HIV systematic reviews : an evaluation of Cochrane reviewsen_ZA
dc.typeArticleen_ZA
Files
Original bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
eshun_maintaining_2019.pdf
Size:
912.28 KB
Format:
Adobe Portable Document Format
Description:
Download article
Download
License bundle
Now showing 1 - 1 of 1
Thumbnail Image
Name:
license.txt
Size:
1.71 KB
Format:
Item-specific license agreed upon to submission
Description:
Download
Collections
Research Articles (Epidemiology and Biostatistics)