An updated date should tell readers something meaningful about the evidence behind a review. A new paper, correction or method can change the interpretation even when the headline result stays similar. The update should explain that change and preserve a clear connection to the earlier version.
Ask what the new information could change
Cochrane’s updating guidance considers whether the question remains relevant and whether new evidence or methods could meaningfully affect the findings. An update is not determined solely by the age of the previous publication.Cochrane Handbook — Chapter IV: Updating a review (opens in a new tab)
For an original hypothetical review of Peptide U, three different developments arrive: a new experiment, a correction to an included figure and a paper about a related analogue. Each needs a different assessment before the review is revised.
The new experiment may qualify under the existing criteria. The correction may change an already extracted result. The analogue paper may be outside scope, in which case adding it without explanation would change the question being answered.
Record the trigger and the decision separately. Discovering a paper is an event; deciding it changes the review requires examining its relevance and content.
Distinguish the kinds of revision
| Change | What the log should explain |
|---|---|
| Search refresh | New search date and eligible records found |
| Data correction | Value or interpretation corrected and why |
| New evidence | Study added and effect on the synthesis |
| Method change | Reason and impact of the revised approach |
| Scope change | How the question or eligibility changed |
A corrected link may improve access without changing the evidence. Label it as a link correction. A new search that finds no eligible studies can establish a later search date without implying a new scientific conclusion.
For the hypothetical figure correction, trace the affected value through the evidence table, prose, takeaway and any calculation. Updating the reference alone would leave the old interpretation in place.
Keep older versions or a clear change history available in the working record. Readers returning to a conclusion should be able to understand why it differs from what they previously read.
Reassess the synthesis instead of appending a paragraph
A new study belongs alongside the existing evidence under the same comparison rules. Appending it as the latest result can give recency more weight than design, directness or precision.
Cochrane notes that updates can change interpretation through additional data, revised methods or corrections to previously included studies. The resulting synthesis and certainty assessment may need revision, even if the direction of the main effect does not reverse.Cochrane Handbook — Chapter IV: Updating a review (opens in a new tab)
In the Peptide U example, suppose the new study measures function while earlier studies measured only a reporter. That may change the directness of the evidence for a functional question, but only after the new study’s design and result are examined.
Give readers an inspectable update statement
A useful statement records the search date, the relevant additions or corrections and their effect on the conclusion. If the conclusion is unchanged, explain whether the evidence became more precise, more direct or simply more current.
Avoid a universal refreshed badge applied across untouched articles. The visible date should correspond to work actually completed on that article, with a distinction between editorial and evidence changes.
If a new question emerges, decide whether it belongs in a separate review. Expanding the old review until it contains unrelated outcomes can make both its history and its conclusion harder to interpret.
The aim is a maintained evidence account, not a stream of disconnected additions. Each revision should improve the reader’s ability to identify the current claim and the evidence that supports it.
Sources and further detail
- Cochrane Handbook — Chapter IV: Updating a review (opens in a new tab)
Update decisions, new information, correction handling and reporting changes read. The Peptide U scenario and revision-log structure are original. This article describes review maintenance; it does not claim that a systematic review or monitoring service has been performed.
Sources checked 19 September 2026. Worked examples are illustrative unless a supplied report is explicitly identified. This article has not undergone independent scientific peer review.