Cochrane has released a new framework to help editors and authors decide when to update a Cochrane review. The framework does not represent a change of policy, but offers practical guidance on how to best implement our existing policies and principles.

The quality of updates to Cochrane reviews can be impacted by evolving review questions and context or advancement in methods and standards. As we focus on delivering our scientific strategy, we must ensure that our reviews evolve to use the right methods and types of data to address the specific review question.  

Cochrane’s ability to version its published reviews means they can be updated when needed. To help authors decide when to proceed with an update, or whether the scope and methods have evolved so much they should start a new protocol, we have developed a new decision framework. This will ensure we can prioritise Cochrane reviews that will be most relevant and impactful for those who use them. 

What’s changing?

Not much. Cochrane already has guidance and standards for when and if an update is necessary, relevant, and impactful. This is covered in ‘Chapter IV: Updating a review’ in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) manual. These aren’t changing. Although these resources are primarily aimed at intervention reviews, the same principles apply to all review types and they are referenced by other Handbooks such as Diagnostic Test Accuracy.  

What is new is a more detailed framework to help guide authors in making the decision for when and if it’s time to update their review.  We are also implementing this within Cochrane systems, so authors have access to the framework at the point they need it; for example, when they are proposing an update via Editorial Manager. Editors or Cochrane groups who make decisions on whether to approve an update will also be able to use this framework as part of managing their portfolio of reviews. 

The framework helps break down the considerations and provides guiding questions for informed decisions. It will help authors identify significant changes that could impact an update, including those related to: the body of supporting evidence (quantity and size of included or excluded studies), scope and relevance of the review question, the need to include new types of evidence or study designs, and other changes to methods. Example questions from the framework include: 

• Have any previously identified studies changed categorization since the last version? Are studies that were awaiting classification or ongoing now complete and available for full assessment? Is new research available and likely to meet selection criteria for inclusion in the review? If not, should the question be reassessed at a later interval? Have any studies from the previous version been retracted, what impact does this have on the review?  
   
• What rationale is there for updating this review within the current context and uncertainties for this topic? Is there for example a guideline that requires the review’s searches to be up to date in order to be credible? Is the intervention, diagnostic test, prognostic factor or model still in use?  
   
• Have the interventions, diagnostic tests, prognostic factors or models, or other review components / focus / criteria changed? If so, is a later date for the start of the review (i.e. searching start date) more appropriate?
   
• Are the study designs eligible for inclusion the same as in last published version of the review? Do any changes result in the need to prospectively reconsider methods, justifying a new protocol? 

These questions are informed by similar sets used successfully by Cochrane groups to assess update proposals prior to submission.  

What does it mean for authors and users of Cochrane reviews?  

• Improved author experience – providing clarity in the decision making process for assessing update proposals sets a clear expectation for Cochrane groups and authors considering review development.  
• Reduce research waste – by making these considerations early in the proposal stage for updates, we hope to avoid authors’ time and resource being spent developing non-relevant updates, freeing up expertise for impactful and up-to-date reviews.  
• Efficient editorial process – with time saved in peer review, the Central Editorial Service can achieve swifter processing of the most impactful and relevant reviews.
• High quality updates – once the changes are embedded, we expect every update we publish to achieve high impact and significant clinical relevance. 

Toby Lasserson, Deputy Editor-in-Chief, explains:  

The decision to update a review requires careful thought. This will involve re-examining the question, methods and data in the existing review, together with what is known about the accumulating evidence base. This can sometimes mean deferring or not proceeding with an update. This new framework guides our contributors through the different considerations to help them make good decisions about when and indeed whether they should update their work.

When are these changes happening?  

The new decision framework will go live from 1 April 2025. From this date, authors will be guided through the framework when submitting an update proposal and Cochrane will use it to make decisions on whether or not to approve them.  

Learn More:  

• Read ‘Chapter IV: Updating a review’ in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) manual.  
• Cochrane groups can access the full Decision framework for update proposals in the Editorial Manager Knowledge Base.