Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey.
Decision-making
Diagnosis
Knowledge synthesis
Rapid reviews
Tests
Journal
BMC medical research methodology
ISSN: 1471-2288
Titre abrégé: BMC Med Res Methodol
Pays: England
ID NLM: 100968545
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
13 05 2020
13 05 2020
Historique:
received:
20
03
2020
accepted:
30
04
2020
entrez:
15
5
2020
pubmed:
15
5
2020
medline:
25
6
2021
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.
METHODS
We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.
RESULTS
All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively).
CONCLUSION
Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.
Identifiants
pubmed: 32404051
doi: 10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z
pii: 10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z
pmc: PMC7220561
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
115Subventions
Organisme : Fundación para la Investigacion Biomedica, Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal
ID : IMP 18-05/2018
Pays : International
Références
Aust J Rural Health. 2014 Oct;22(5):211-22
pubmed: 25303412
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1:10
pubmed: 22587960
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Feb 26;16(1):17
pubmed: 29482643
JAMA. 2018 Jan 23;319(4):388-396
pubmed: 29362800
Syst Rev. 2019 Jun 18;8(1):143
pubmed: 31215463
J Med Internet Res. 2004 Sep 29;6(3):e34
pubmed: 15471760
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 14;4:4
pubmed: 25589399
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:61-7
pubmed: 26327490
Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 22;4:183
pubmed: 26693720
Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2013 Sep 11;(9):MR000022
pubmed: 24022476
Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 11;4:25
pubmed: 25875495
Syst Rev. 2015 Nov 12;4:160
pubmed: 26563648
JAMA. 2020 Jan 23;:
pubmed: 31971553
Clin Microbiol Infect. 2014 Feb;20(2):105-13
pubmed: 24274632
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Nov;115:160-171
pubmed: 31229582
Syst Rev. 2019 Jul 11;8(1):163
pubmed: 31296265
Syst Rev. 2017 Feb 17;6(1):32
pubmed: 28212677
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Nov 25;14(1):83
pubmed: 27884208
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jun 18;18(1):56
pubmed: 29914386
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;114:22-29
pubmed: 31185276
J Clin Epidemiol. 2014 Nov;67(11):1192-9
pubmed: 24996667
Syst Rev. 2018 May 19;7(1):77
pubmed: 29778096
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Dec;116:98-105
pubmed: 31521724
Diagn Progn Res. 2019 Apr 4;3:7
pubmed: 31093577
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Aug 14;17(1):121
pubmed: 28806999
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Jan;30(1):20-7
pubmed: 24451157
Syst Rev. 2013 Oct 07;2:82
pubmed: 24099098
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Dec;92:29-37
pubmed: 28916490
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Dec;92:18-28
pubmed: 28916488
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Feb 5;4(1):e001178
pubmed: 30899562
Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 14;4:26
pubmed: 25874967
Int J Infect Dis. 2016 Jun;47:15-22
pubmed: 27208635
Syst Rev. 2016 May 10;5:79
pubmed: 27160255