Presentation (CTI)

OBJECTIVES: Develop objective guidance statements for best practices in living evidence synthesis (LES), as best practices in traditional evidence synthesis have already been established.
METHODS: A standard Delphi process was used to achieve consensus among 29 panelists with experience in LES using JISC Online Surveys. A minimum response rate of 80% was required among the 29 panelists, and agreement of 85% or higher constituted consensus among voting panelists. Draft statements were informed by an overview of living systematic reviews, a living evidence survey plus workshop activity, and an ongoing living critical interpretive synthesis of LES. Statements expanded upon the living methodology reporting guidance published by the PRISMA-LSR group to include other considerations for LES.
RESULTS: Nineteen statements reached consensus (out of an initial 23) following three rounds of the Delphi process. Statements described conduct, including set up and maintenance of living mode as well as funding and resources; reporting; publishing; and implementation/appraisal. Final statements included ways to enable the living mode, such as: version history; authoring tools; collaboration; unit of update; transparency; communication; publication considerations; and digital and technological considerations. Panelists agreed least on actionable, objective measures concerning the use of automation and digital tools to enable a living process, but agreed more on subjective, general statements on how to maintain LES and when to employ the living mode.
CONCLUSIONS: Considering the variety of synthesis types encompassed by living evidence and even varying evidence synthesis definitions, it can be difficult to apply a uniform set of best practices to all. Appraisal tools for LES are an area for future research. Moving forward, it will be difficult to employ the living mode without embracing digital tools and a different publication and peer review model. How best to implement this requires further consensus work.