|
|
@@ -1,3 +1,59 @@
|
|
|
-# updating-literature-review
|
|
|
+# Updating a Literature Review Without Starting Over
|
|
|
|
|
|
-How to update a literature review without starting over, with source-linked screening via https://yila.ai
|
|
|
+Literature reviews age quickly. A review completed at the start of a doctoral programme may be two or three years out of date by the time the thesis is submitted. A systematic review published five years ago may no longer reflect current evidence. A background section written for one grant application may need refreshing for the next. Updating a review can feel like starting again from scratch, but with the right approach it is a manageable, even routine, task. This guide explains when and how to update a review efficiently, how to integrate new studies without disrupting your existing synthesis, and how a source-linked assistant such as [Yila](https://yila.ai) can help you screen and extract from new papers quickly while keeping every claim tied to its source.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Decide whether an update is needed
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Not every review needs updating at the same frequency. Consider how fast the field moves, how central the review is to your current work and whether there are signals of important new evidence, such as large new studies, new methods or shifts in practice. For a thesis, plan to update the review shortly before submission. For a published systematic review, consider whether new evidence is likely to change the conclusions; if not, a full update may not be worth the effort.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Reuse your original search
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The single most useful asset for an update is a well-documented original search. If you recorded the databases, search strings, dates and limits, you can rerun the same searches restricted to the period since your last search. This produces a manageable set of new records that can be screened using the same criteria.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+If your original search was not documented, now is the time to reconstruct and record it. Use the studies you included as a test set: a reconstructed search should retrieve them. Then apply it to the update period.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Revisit the search strategy
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Fields evolve, and so does their vocabulary. New terms emerge, subject headings change and new databases or sources become relevant. Before rerunning the search, review whether it still captures the topic. Look at recent key papers to see whether they use terms absent from your original strategy, and add them if necessary. If you add terms, consider running them across the full original period as well, to catch older studies you may have missed.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Screen consistently
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Apply the same inclusion and exclusion criteria used in the original review, unless there is a good reason to change them. Consistency ensures that the updated review remains coherent. If criteria change, document the reasons and consider whether previously excluded studies should be reassessed.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Screening is often the most time-consuming part of an update. Yila can speed up full-text screening by answering questions about each candidate study, such as its population, design or outcomes, with answers linked to the relevant passages. You still make the decision, but you reach the relevant information faster.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Extract data into the existing structure
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+If your original review used a literature matrix or data extraction form, extract new studies into the same structure. This makes it easy to see how the new evidence relates to the old. Add a column recording when each study was added so that you can distinguish original from updated content.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Check that your extraction definitions still make sense. New studies may report outcomes in different ways or use new designs that do not fit existing categories. Adjust the structure if necessary and document the changes.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Integrate rather than append
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The temptation in an update is to add a paragraph at the end of each section describing new studies. This produces a review that reads like a series of addenda. Better updates integrate new evidence into the existing synthesis, revising the narrative where the new studies change the picture.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Ask how the new studies relate to existing patterns. Do they confirm previous findings, extend them to new populations or contradict them? Do they address gaps you identified earlier? Do they introduce new questions? Revise the synthesis to reflect these relationships.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Reassess conclusions
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+New evidence may strengthen, weaken or change the review's conclusions. Re-examine each main conclusion in light of the updated evidence. If you rated the certainty of evidence, rerate it. If conclusions change, state clearly what has changed and why. Readers of an updated review want to know whether the bottom line is different.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Update the gaps and future directions
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+The gaps you identified in the original review may have been partially or fully addressed. Revisit them. Remove gaps that new studies have filled, refine those that remain and add new gaps that have emerged. This keeps the review's forward-looking sections accurate and useful.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Document the update
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Record the dates of the original and updated searches, the number of new records retrieved and screened, the number of new studies included and any changes to methods or criteria. For a published systematic review, follow the relevant reporting guidance for updates. For a thesis, a brief note in the methods explaining the update is usually sufficient.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Build updating into your routine
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Rather than treating updates as occasional large projects, consider building a lightweight updating routine. Set up database alerts for your key search terms. Screen new records monthly or quarterly. Add relevant studies to your matrix as they appear. When a formal update is needed, most of the work will already be done.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Some fields now produce living systematic reviews, which are updated continuously as new evidence emerges. Even if you do not adopt that model formally, its principles of regular searching, rapid screening and incremental integration can make your reviews far easier to maintain.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+## Keep sources traceable
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Throughout the update, maintain links between claims and sources. When you revise a sentence to incorporate a new study, make sure the citation and supporting passage are recorded. Source-linked notes produced with Yila help keep this traceability intact, so that every statement in the updated review can be checked against the evidence.
|
|
|
+
|
|
|
+Updating a literature review is not a sign that the original was inadequate. It reflects the reality that knowledge grows. With a documented search, consistent criteria, a stable extraction structure and an integrative approach to synthesis, updates become a natural part of research rather than a dreaded reconstruction.
|
