Stefan Elbers

73 Living systematic reviews in rehabilitation science primary studies in a meta-analysis, the possibility of accommodating new methodological developments into the study, and to update data extraction forms at a later stage, to include follow-up studies or correct omissions or errors. Workflow LSRs require long-term commitment of a research team, which can lead to a substantial ongoing workload (Millard et al., 2019). Detailed planning of a feasible workflow that allows for updates of the procedures over time is therefore recommended (e.g. Counotte et al., 2018; Schmidt et al., 2020). Researchers should anticipate that the research team is likely to change over time, and include training programs and calibration procedures. This is also true for leaving the possibility open to integrate new digital developments to (semi) assisted approaches within the review process at a later stage (Elliott et al., 2017; Thomas et al., 2017). Figure 1 depicts the workflow diagram for the current project. Each year, we will rerun the search in all databases. New records will be imported into Endnote and deduplicated using the procedure of Bramer and colleagues (2016). The set of unique records will then be imported into web application Rayyan, for masked screening in duplicate (Ouzzani et al., 2016). Potential eligible studies will be imported into Endnote to help find the full text versions for these references. We will use Google Forms to perform the second-round selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. The advantage of these digital forms is that they are stored in an online spreadsheet that is connected to our digital application. Hence, new studies are automatically integrated into the online tables and calculations. The results of the update will be evaluated by the steering committee during the yearly meeting. The involved researchers are divided over two teams. Members of the steering committee will meet on a yearly base and decide whether new results justify a peer review publication, based on the number of new cohorts, changes in outcomes or conclusions. At minimum, we will publish an update every three years because we believe that an absence of any change also contains valuable information. The steering committee will also discuss potential methodology improvements or amendments to the procedures, including the opportunity to integrate large scale routinely collected data (Créquit et al., 2020), the refinement of the data extraction form base on a newly developed checklist (Negrini et al., 2020), and initiatives to increase participation of the research community (e.g. Probst et al., 2019). Finally, the steering committee will evaluate the need for continuation of this LSR project based on the replication checklist by Tugwell and colleagues (2020). The meeting notes will be added as appendix to the online repository. Members of the review team will be responsible for screening, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. They