1 research outputs found
When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions:Consensus checklist
For systematic reviews of interventions, replication is defined as the
reproduction of findings of previous systematic reviews looking at the same
effectiveness question either by: purposefully repeating the same methods to
verify one or more empirical findings; or purposefully extending or narrowing
the systematic review to a broader or more focused question (eg, across broader
or more focused populations, intervention types, settings, outcomes, or study
designs)
Although systematic reviews are often used as the basis for informing policy
and practice decisions, little evidence has been published so far on whether
replication of systematic reviews is worthwhile
Replication of existing systematic reviews cannot be done for all topics; any
unnecessary or poorly conducted replication contributes to research waste
The decision to replicate a systematic review should be based on the priority of
the research question; the likelihood that a replication will resolve uncertainties,
controversies, or the need for additional evidence; the magnitude of the benefit
or harm of implementing findings of a replication; and the opportunity cost of
the replication
Systematic review authors, commissioners, funders, and other users (including
clinicians, patients, and representatives from policy making organisations) can
use the guidance and checklist proposed here to assess the need for a replicatio