Systematic reviews are a type of literature review that collects and critically analyzes multiple research studies or papers, using methods that are selected before one or more research questions are formulated, and then finding and analyzing studies that relate to and answer those questions in a structured methodology.
They are designed to provide a complete, exhaustive summary of current literature relevant to a research question.
AHRQ then commissioned full update reviews for 9 of these 11 CERs.
Where possible, we matched the original conclusions with their corresponding conclusions in the update reports, and compared the congruence between these pairs with our original predictions about which conclusions in each CER remained valid.
To support the 13th World Congress on Endometriosis in Vancouver, the Editors of the ESHRE journals have put together a collection of articles, selected for their impact and relevance to the field of Endometriosis…
Using an illustrative case, we outline some of the necessary metadata that needs to be captured in order to achieve some initial automation in authorship of systematic reviews and clinical guidelines.
The main issue at hand is that the work of summarizing and synthesizing human clinical studies is a time-consuming and expensive process that can benefit from new semantic technologies and data sharing. 2009  introduced the idea of Research Objects (RO) as a solution for exchanging reusable, machine-readable scientific publications.
They wrote about this issue and and explained that "the information used to support clinical decisions is not dynamically linked to the cumulative knowledge of the best practice from research and audit." Maintaining systematic reviews and clinical guidelines with the latest knowledge available involves having a notion of a "living publication" rather than a static document.
The AHRQ Comparative Effectiveness Review program had produced 13 comparative effectiveness reviews (CERs), a subcategory of systematic reviews, by 2009, 11 of which were assessed in 2009 using a surveillance system to determine the degree to which individual conclusions were out of date and to assign a priority for updating each report.
Four CERs were judged to be a high priority for updating, four CERs were judged to be medium priority for updating, and three CERs were judged to be low priority for updating.