Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Comment
  • Published:

The value of living systematic reviews

Nature Human Behaviour (2026)Cite this article

Subjects

Living systematic reviews continuously integrate new research and can provide timely evidence for policy and practice. This format adds value beyond traditional systematic reviews, and we recommend its wider adoption.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to the full article PDF.

USD 39.95

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: Conventional systematic reviews as compared with LSRs.
Fig. 2: LSR usage trends.

References

  1. Elliott, J. H. et al. PLoS Med. 11, e1001603 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Shojania, K. G. et al. Ann. Intern. Med. 147, 224–233 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  3. Kwok, W. et al. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 189, 112018 (2026).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  4. Elliott, J. H. et al. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 91, 23–30 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  5. Iversen, I. A. et al. Psychoneuroendocrinology 185, 107713 (2026).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  6. Kaka, A. S., MacDonald, R., Linskens, E. J. & Wilt, T. J. Ann. Intern. Med. 174, W114–W115 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  7. Siemieniuk, R. A. et al. BMJ 370, m2980 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  8. Akl, E. A. et al. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 156, 11–21 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  9. Tricco, A. C. et al. J. Clin. Epidemiol. 79, 46–54 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Chambers, C. D. & Tzavella, L. Nat. Hum. Behav. 6, 29–42 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors were supported by the Research Council of Norway grant 301767.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Psychology, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Ingebjørg A. Iversen & Daniel S. Quintana

  2. K. G. Jebsen Centre for Neurodevelopmental Disorders, University of Oslo, Oslo, Norway

    Daniel S. Quintana

  3. NevSom, Department of Rare Disorders & Disabilities, Oslo University Hospital, Oslo, Norway

    Daniel S. Quintana

Authors
  1. Ingebjørg A. Iversen
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Daniel S. Quintana
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Daniel S. Quintana.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

Iversen, I.A., Quintana, D.S. The value of living systematic reviews. Nat Hum Behav (2026). https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02428-1

Download citation

  • Published:

  • Version of record:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-026-02428-1

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing