Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.
Evidence-based medicine
Rapid review
Systematic review
Technology assessment
Journal
Systematic reviews
ISSN: 2046-4053
Titre abrégé: Syst Rev
Pays: England
ID NLM: 101580575
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
30 07 2022
30 07 2022
Historique:
received:
10
11
2021
accepted:
23
06
2022
entrez:
29
7
2022
pubmed:
30
7
2022
medline:
3
8
2022
Statut:
epublish
Résumé
Health policy-makers must often make decisions in compressed time frames and with limited resources. Hence, rapid reviews have become a pragmatic alternative to comprehensive systematic reviews. However, it is important that rapid review methods remain rigorous to support good policy development and decisions. There is currently little evidence about which streamlined steps in a rapid review are less likely to introduce unacceptable levels of uncertainty while still producing a product that remains useful to policy-makers. This paper summarizes current research describing commonly used methods and practices that are used to conduct rapid reviews and presents key considerations and options to guide methodological choices for a rapid review. The most important step for a rapid review is for an experienced research team to have early and ongoing engagement with the people who have requested the review. A clear research protocol, derived from a needs assessment conducted with the requester, serves to focus the review, defines the scope of the rapid review, and guides all subsequent steps. Common recommendations for rapid review methods include tailoring the literature search in terms of databases, dates, and languages. Researchers can consider using a staged search to locate high-quality systematic reviews and then subsequently published primary studies. The approaches used for study screening and selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment should be tailored to the topic, researcher experience, and available resources. Many rapid reviews use a single reviewer for study selection, risk-of-bias assessment, or data abstraction, sometimes with partial or full verification by a second reviewer. Rapid reviews usually use a descriptive synthesis method rather than quantitative meta-analysis. Use of brief report templates and standardized production methods helps to speed final report publication. Researchers conducting rapid reviews need to make transparent methodological choices, informed by stakeholder input, to ensure that rapid reviews meet their intended purpose. Transparency is critical because it is unclear how or how much streamlined methods can bias the conclusions of reviews. There are not yet internationally accepted standards for conducting or reporting rapid reviews. Thus, this article proposes interim guidance for researchers who are increasingly employing these methods.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Health policy-makers must often make decisions in compressed time frames and with limited resources. Hence, rapid reviews have become a pragmatic alternative to comprehensive systematic reviews. However, it is important that rapid review methods remain rigorous to support good policy development and decisions. There is currently little evidence about which streamlined steps in a rapid review are less likely to introduce unacceptable levels of uncertainty while still producing a product that remains useful to policy-makers.
METHODS
This paper summarizes current research describing commonly used methods and practices that are used to conduct rapid reviews and presents key considerations and options to guide methodological choices for a rapid review.
RESULTS
The most important step for a rapid review is for an experienced research team to have early and ongoing engagement with the people who have requested the review. A clear research protocol, derived from a needs assessment conducted with the requester, serves to focus the review, defines the scope of the rapid review, and guides all subsequent steps. Common recommendations for rapid review methods include tailoring the literature search in terms of databases, dates, and languages. Researchers can consider using a staged search to locate high-quality systematic reviews and then subsequently published primary studies. The approaches used for study screening and selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment should be tailored to the topic, researcher experience, and available resources. Many rapid reviews use a single reviewer for study selection, risk-of-bias assessment, or data abstraction, sometimes with partial or full verification by a second reviewer. Rapid reviews usually use a descriptive synthesis method rather than quantitative meta-analysis. Use of brief report templates and standardized production methods helps to speed final report publication.
CONCLUSIONS
Researchers conducting rapid reviews need to make transparent methodological choices, informed by stakeholder input, to ensure that rapid reviews meet their intended purpose. Transparency is critical because it is unclear how or how much streamlined methods can bias the conclusions of reviews. There are not yet internationally accepted standards for conducting or reporting rapid reviews. Thus, this article proposes interim guidance for researchers who are increasingly employing these methods.
Identifiants
pubmed: 35906677
doi: 10.1186/s13643-022-02011-5
pii: 10.1186/s13643-022-02011-5
pmc: PMC9338520
doi:
Types de publication
Journal Article
Meta-Analysis
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
151Informations de copyright
© 2022. The Author(s).
Références
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2018 Jun 8;18(1):51
pubmed: 29884121
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Jul;75:40-6
pubmed: 27005575
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2017 Jan;33(2):176-182
pubmed: 28655365
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018 Dec;23(6):204-205
pubmed: 29959158
Bull World Health Organ. 2011 Jan 1;89(1):54-61
pubmed: 21346891
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;96:133-142
pubmed: 29103958
Value Health. 2019 Apr;22(4):385-390
pubmed: 30975388
Syst Rev. 2018 Oct 20;7(1):168
pubmed: 30342549
Am J Prev Med. 2018 Jan;54(1S1):S19-S25
pubmed: 29254522
J Clin Epidemiol. 2015 Dec;68(12):1451-62.e3
pubmed: 26278023
Implement Sci. 2016 Aug 18;11(1):117
pubmed: 27538384
Emerg Med Australas. 2018 Feb;30(1):13-17
pubmed: 29224233
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2016 Jun;14(2):95-101
pubmed: 27058251
PLoS One. 2016 Dec 8;11(12):e0165903
pubmed: 27930662
Res Synth Methods. 2017 Dec;8(4):475-484
pubmed: 28703492
Health Res Policy Syst. 2017 May 3;15(1):37
pubmed: 28468683
Syst Rev. 2016 Oct 28;5(1):184
pubmed: 27793186
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1:10
pubmed: 22587960
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Oct;102:1-11
pubmed: 29864540
Res Synth Methods. 2018 Dec;9(4):521-526
pubmed: 30408843
BMJ. 2021 Mar 29;372:n71
pubmed: 33782057
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Feb 26;16(1):17
pubmed: 29482643
Syst Rev. 2015 Apr 17;4:50
pubmed: 25925676
BMC Med. 2015 Sep 16;13:224
pubmed: 26377409
J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;88:148-153
pubmed: 28625563
J Clin Epidemiol. 2020 Feb;118:42-54
pubmed: 31698064
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018 Dec;23(6):201-203
pubmed: 29950313
Health Res Policy Syst. 2016 Nov 25;14(1):83
pubmed: 27884208
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;114:22-29
pubmed: 31185276
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2017 Aug 14;17(1):121
pubmed: 28806999
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Dec 12;16(1):120
pubmed: 30541561
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;96:23-34
pubmed: 29258906
J Clin Epidemiol. 2021 Feb;130:13-22
pubmed: 33068715
Syst Rev. 2015 Jan 01;4:1
pubmed: 25554246
J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Feb;106:121-135
pubmed: 30312656
J Eval Clin Pract. 2015 Dec;21(6):1199-204
pubmed: 26123092
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Spring;24(2):133-9
pubmed: 18400114
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:61-7
pubmed: 26327490
Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 11;4:25
pubmed: 25875495
Syst Rev. 2016 Aug 05;5(1):132
pubmed: 27491354
Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 May 29;16(1):45
pubmed: 29843743
BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Feb 5;4(1):e001178
pubmed: 30899562
Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 14;4:26
pubmed: 25874967
Syst Rev. 2016 May 10;5:79
pubmed: 27160255
BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019 Jun 28;19(1):132
pubmed: 31253092
Implement Sci. 2018 Feb 12;13(1):31
pubmed: 29433543