Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review.

Health-technology assessment Knowledge synthesis Medical tests Rapid reviews Review methods Scoping review

Journal

Journal of clinical epidemiology
ISSN: 1878-5921
Titre abrégé: J Clin Epidemiol
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 8801383

Informations de publication

Date de publication:
12 2019
Historique:
received: 09 04 2019
revised: 14 08 2019
accepted: 09 09 2019
pubmed: 16 9 2019
medline: 22 5 2020
entrez: 16 9 2019
Statut: ppublish

Résumé

Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence. We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses. Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.

Sections du résumé

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES
Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence.
RESULTS
We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses.
CONCLUSION
Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.

Identifiants

pubmed: 31521724
pii: S0895-4356(19)30292-6
doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.004
pii:
doi:

Types de publication

Journal Article Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't Review

Langues

eng

Sous-ensembles de citation

IM

Pagination

98-105

Informations de copyright

Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Auteurs

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez (I)

Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: inarev7@yahoo.com.

Paloma Moreno-Nunez (P)

Department of Preventive Medicine, Hospital Ramon y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain.

Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit (B)

Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria.

Karen R Steingart (KR)

Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK.

Laura Del Mar González Peña (LDM)

Especialización en Epidemiología Clínica, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud (FUCS), Hospital de San José, Bogotá, Colombia.

Diana Buitrago-Garcia (D)

Especialización en Epidemiología Clínica, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud (FUCS), Hospital de San José, Bogotá, Colombia.

David Kaunelis (D)

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, Canada.

José Ignacio Emparanza (JI)

Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Donostia, BioDonostia, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, San Sebastian, Spain.

Pablo Alonso-Coello (P)

Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano-Servicio de Epidemiología Clínica y Salud Pública, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Barcelona, Spain.

Andrea C Tricco (AC)

Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital. Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality, Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada.

Javier Zamora (J)

Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain.

Articles similaires

[Redispensing of expensive oral anticancer medicines: a practical application].

Lisanne N van Merendonk, Kübra Akgöl, Bastiaan Nuijen
1.00
Humans Antineoplastic Agents Administration, Oral Drug Costs Counterfeit Drugs

Smoking Cessation and Incident Cardiovascular Disease.

Jun Hwan Cho, Seung Yong Shin, Hoseob Kim et al.
1.00
Humans Male Smoking Cessation Cardiovascular Diseases Female
Humans United States Aged Cross-Sectional Studies Medicare Part C
1.00
Humans Yoga Low Back Pain Female Male

Classifications MeSH