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...
Autores principales: | , , , , , , , , , |
---|---|
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 |