123 Methods for determining the conclusiveness of systematic review results: A living scoping review

Abstract

Objectives/Goals: Understanding systematic review results help prioritise more valuable studies. However, evaluating whether a systematic review has conclusively answered a question is difficult, and it is unclear which tools are available for such assessments. Thus, we mapped the extent of methods for determining the conclusiveness of systematic review results. Methods/Study Population: We searched Medline (Ovid), EMBASE (Ovid), and Web of Science to find papers with methods to determine whether systematic review results were conclusive or should be updated. The characteristics of primary references for included methods are presented. We classified and summarized available methods. Results/Anticipated Results: A total of 58 unique methods were identified. Many have been published since 2010 and often did not include a worked example. We found 25 mathematical methods for the conclusiveness of meta-analyses, which included cumulative meta-analysis, fail-safe number, fragility index, prediction and machine learning model, simulation-based power, conditional power, and graphical approaches. There were 15 methods for the conclusiveness of cumulative meta-analyses, such as quality control approach, trial sequential analysis, sequential meta-analysis, and law of iterated logarithm. And, 18 methods assessed the conclusiveness of systematic reviews: GRADE framework, the strength of a body of evidence approach, methods for assessing the need to update a systematic review, and methods for specific clinical domains. Discussion/Significance of Impact: We found a wide range of methods that can be used to determine the conclusiveness of systematic review results. End-users of systematic reviews can review our results to find the most appropriate methods for their contexts and decisions.