When to replicate systematic reviews of interventions: consensus checklist

For systematic reviews of interventions, replication is defined as the \nreproduction of findings of previous systematic reviews looking at the same \neffectiveness question either by: purposefully repeating the same methods to \nverify one or more empirical findings; or purposefully extending or narrowing \nthe systematic review to a broader or more focused question (eg, across broader \nor more focused populations, intervention types, settings, outcomes, or study \ndesigns) \nAlthough systematic reviews are often used as the basis for informing policy \nand practice decisions, little evidence has been published so far on whether \nreplication of systematic reviews is worthwhile \nReplication of existing systematic reviews cannot be done for all topics; any \nunnecessary or poorly conducted replication contributes to research waste \nThe decision to replicate a systematic review should be based on the priority of \nthe research question; the likelihood that a replication will resolve uncertainties, \ncontroversies, or the need for additional evidence; the magnitude of the benefit \nor harm of implementing findings of a replication; and the opportunity cost of \nthe replication \nSystematic review authors, commissioners, funders, and other users (including \nclinicians, patients, and representatives from policy making organisations) can \nuse the guidance and checklist proposed here to assess the need for a replication