Methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews: a protocol for a living methodological survey
Bibliographic record
Abstract
<ns4:p><ns4:bold>Background: </ns4:bold>The living systematic review (LSR) is an emerging approach for improved evidence synthesis that uses continual updating to include relevant new evidence as soon as it is published. The objectives of this study are to: 1) assess the methods of conduct and reporting of living systematic reviews using a living study approach; and 2) describe the life cycle of living systematic reviews, i.e., describe the changes over time to their methods and findings.</ns4:p><ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Methods: </ns4:bold>For objective 1, we will begin by conducting a cross-sectional survey and then update its findings every 6 months by including newly published LSRs. For objective 2, we will conduct a prospective longitudinal follow-up of the cohort of included LSRs. To identify LSRs, we will continually search the following electronic databases: Medline, EMBASE and the Cochrane library. We will also contact groups conducting LSRs to identify eligible studies that we might have missed. We will follow the standard systematic review methodology for study selection and data abstraction. For each LSR update, we will abstract information on the following: 1) general characteristics, 2) systematic review methodology, 3) living approach methodology, 4) results, and 5) editorial and publication processes. We will update the findings of both the surveys and the longitudinal follow-up of included LSRs every 6 months. In addition, we will identify articles addressing LSR methods to be included in an ‘LSR methods repository’.</ns4:p><ns4:p> <ns4:bold>Conclusion: </ns4:bold>The proposed living methodological survey will allow us to monitor how the methods of conduct, and reporting as well as the findings of LSRs change over time. Ultimately this should help with ensuring the quality and transparency of LSRs.</ns4:p>
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.918 | 0.974 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.024 | 0.004 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; both teacher heads agree on what is shown here.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".