Cargando…

A scoping review of rapid review methods

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological c...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Tricco, Andrea C., Antony, Jesmin, Zarin, Wasifa, Strifler, Lisa, Ghassemi, Marco, Ivory, John, Perrier, Laure, Hutton, Brian, Moher, David, Straus, Sharon E.
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2015
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574114/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26377409
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
_version_ 1782390571291115520
author Tricco, Andrea C.
Antony, Jesmin
Zarin, Wasifa
Strifler, Lisa
Ghassemi, Marco
Ivory, John
Perrier, Laure
Hutton, Brian
Moher, David
Straus, Sharon E.
author_facet Tricco, Andrea C.
Antony, Jesmin
Zarin, Wasifa
Strifler, Lisa
Ghassemi, Marco
Ivory, John
Perrier, Laure
Hutton, Brian
Moher, David
Straus, Sharon E.
author_sort Tricco, Andrea C.
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: We included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4574114
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2015
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-45741142015-09-19 A scoping review of rapid review methods Tricco, Andrea C. Antony, Jesmin Zarin, Wasifa Strifler, Lisa Ghassemi, Marco Ivory, John Perrier, Laure Hutton, Brian Moher, David Straus, Sharon E. BMC Med Research Article BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review. METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: We included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2015-09-16 /pmc/articles/PMC4574114/ /pubmed/26377409 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 Text en © Tricco et al. 2015 Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
spellingShingle Research Article
Tricco, Andrea C.
Antony, Jesmin
Zarin, Wasifa
Strifler, Lisa
Ghassemi, Marco
Ivory, John
Perrier, Laure
Hutton, Brian
Moher, David
Straus, Sharon E.
A scoping review of rapid review methods
title A scoping review of rapid review methods
title_full A scoping review of rapid review methods
title_fullStr A scoping review of rapid review methods
title_full_unstemmed A scoping review of rapid review methods
title_short A scoping review of rapid review methods
title_sort scoping review of rapid review methods
topic Research Article
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574114/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/26377409
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
work_keys_str_mv AT triccoandreac ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT antonyjesmin ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT zarinwasifa ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT striflerlisa ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT ghassemimarco ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT ivoryjohn ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT perrierlaure ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT huttonbrian ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT moherdavid ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT straussharone ascopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT triccoandreac scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT antonyjesmin scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT zarinwasifa scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT striflerlisa scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT ghassemimarco scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT ivoryjohn scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT perrierlaure scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT huttonbrian scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT moherdavid scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods
AT straussharone scopingreviewofrapidreviewmethods