On 2014 Feb 23, Hilda Bastian commented:

This paper tackles an important issue. We definitely need better ways to keep up with the evidence - and the rate of growth of that evidence makes it both more difficult and more urgent (Bastian H, 2010). It's particularly helpful that the paper addresses the risks of multiple testing in continuous updating models.

In calling for "a shift to continuous work process," though, it's important to remember that this shift has long occurred for many organizations and groups. A 2010 survey of agencies that sponsor and conduct systematic reviews (sometimes with clinical practice guidelines as well), found 66 that were already doing this to some extent at least (Garritty C, 2010).

In this latest proposal for living systematic reviews, several issues reach Table 1 as key challenges, that are unquestionably important. But "validation and acceptance by the academic community" and "ensuring conventional academic incentives are maintained" did not prevent the development of continuous updating models.

The restriction of access to key databases does contribute to keeping many groups trapped in duplicative updating hamster wheels, though. Poor access leads to critical research waste (Glasziou P, 2014). Making the preservation of conventional academic incentives foundational in Table 1, rather than, say, opening databases, runs the risk of focusing us on technical issues within restricted models, slowing down and limiting both innovation and the entry of new players.

On 2014 Feb 23, Hilda Bastian commented:

This paper tackles an important issue. We definitely need better ways to keep up with the evidence - and the rate of growth of that evidence makes it both more difficult and more urgent (Bastian H, 2010). It's particularly helpful that the paper addresses the risks of multiple testing in continuous updating models.

In calling for "a shift to continuous work process," though, it's important to remember that this shift has long occurred for many organizations and groups. A 2010 survey of agencies that sponsor and conduct systematic reviews (sometimes with clinical practice guidelines as well), found 66 that were already doing this to some extent at least (Garritty C, 2010).

In this latest proposal for living systematic reviews, several issues reach Table 1 as key challenges, that are unquestionably important. But "validation and acceptance by the academic community" and "ensuring conventional academic incentives are maintained" did not prevent the development of continuous updating models.

The restriction of access to key databases does contribute to keeping many groups trapped in duplicative updating hamster wheels, though. Poor access leads to critical research waste (Glasziou P, 2014). Making the preservation of conventional academic incentives foundational in Table 1, rather than, say, opening databases, runs the risk of focusing us on technical issues within restricted models, slowing down and limiting both innovation and the entry of new players.