{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.022532188841201718, 'fraction_numerical': 0.004291845493562232, 'mean_word_length': 5.760869565217392, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Current definitions of living systematic reviews and living guidelines need to change

There is a tremendous interest in living systematic reviews (LSRs) and guidelines (LGLs) across the evidence-based medicine and public health communities. Many major systematic review and guideline development entities and publications are implementing and publishing such reviews and guidelines, including the Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine.1–4 The COVID-19 pandemic has brought LGLs to the forefront of practice and policy in healthcare. Definitions are important in clinical epidemiology, public health, and programmanagement for communication, clarity of researchmethods, and intervention implementation and evaluation. However, the currently accepted definitions for both LSRs and LGLs do not reflect the needs of either developers or end-users, and may lead to inefficiencies in production and to products that are not fit for purpose.