When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist

Abstract

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 replication