A systematic review is a type of research that uses rigorous and standardized methods to collect, critically appraise, and synthesize all available evidence on a specific topic. Systematic reviews are widely recognized as the best way to synthesize the available evidence and answer clinical questions. However, not all systematic reviews are created equal. In recent years, the concept of a living systematic review has emerged as a new way of conducting systematic reviews that offers several advantages over traditional systematic reviews.

What is a living systematic review? A living systematic review is a dynamic, ongoing process that continuously updates and incorporates new evidence as it becomes available. Unlike a traditional systematic review, which is conducted once and then published, a living systematic review is updated regularly and can be accessed online at any time. The aim of a living systematic review is to provide an up-to-date and comprehensive summary of the evidence on a specific topic.

Advantages of a living systematic review

1. Timeliness: One of the biggest advantages of a living systematic review is that it is always up-to-date. As new evidence becomes available, it is quickly incorporated into the review, ensuring that the information is always current and relevant. This is particularly important in rapidly evolving fields where new evidence is constantly being produced.
2. Relevance: A living systematic review is tailored to specific populations and populations of interest, making it more relevant to the needs of clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers. This is because a living systematic review is updated regularly to reflect new evidence and new populations, ensuring that it remains relevant to the needs of its target audience.
3. Flexibility: A living systematic review is flexible in that it can be updated as new evidence becomes available, rather than being limited by the publication cycle of a journal. This allows for a more comprehensive and up-to-date synthesis of the available evidence.
4. Improved transparency: A living systematic review is transparent in its methodology and results, making it easier for readers to understand the process and the evidence behind the conclusions. This increased transparency also allows for greater accountability, as it is easier for others to verify the results and methodology of the review.
5. Collaboration: A living systematic review encourages collaboration between researchers and stakeholders, as it allows for input and feedback from multiple sources. This collaboration can lead to more comprehensive and robust reviews, as well as improved communication between researchers and stakeholders.

In conclusion, a living systematic review offers several advantages over traditional systematic reviews. Its dynamic, ongoing nature makes it more relevant, timely, flexible, transparent, and collaborative. As such, a living systematic review can provide a more comprehensive and up-to-date summary of the available evidence on a specific topic, making it an important tool for clinicians, researchers, and policy-makers.