Updating 10 5 6
They developed the guidance arising from the meeting, developed the checklist and diagrams, added examples, and finalised the manuscript.
The guidance was circulated to the larger group three times, with the PUGs panel providing extensive feedback.
Their comments helped inform the emerging guidance.
The organising committee became the writing committee after the meeting.
A series of small group discussions followed each question, deliberating content, and forming recommendations, as well as recognising uncertainties.
If they have not been included, this threatens the validity of the review, and, at worst, means the review could mislead.
For patients and other healthcare consumers, this means that care and policy development might not be fully informed by the latest research; furthermore, researchers could be misled and carry out research in areas where no further research is actually needed.1 Thus, there are clear benefits to updating reviews, rather than duplicating the entire process as new evidence emerges or new methods develop.
Other groups, including guideline developers and journal editors, adopt updating principles (as applied, for example, by the journal; https://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/).
The panel for updating guidance for systematic reviews (PUGs) group met to draw together experiences and identify a common approach.
Preparing a systematic review is time and resource consuming, and provides a snapshot of knowledge at the time of incorporation of data from studies identified during the latest search.