Cargando…

Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines

BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available...

Descripción completa

Detalles Bibliográficos
Autores principales: Kelly, Shannon E, Moher, David, Clifford, Tammy J
Formato: Online Artículo Texto
Lenguaje:English
Publicado: BioMed Central 2016
Materias:
Acceso en línea:https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4862155/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27160255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9
_version_ 1782431317550432256
author Kelly, Shannon E
Moher, David
Clifford, Tammy J
author_facet Kelly, Shannon E
Moher, David
Clifford, Tammy J
author_sort Kelly, Shannon E
collection PubMed
description BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available instruments. The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search for rapid reviews using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library) through December 31, 2014. Grey literature was searched thoroughly, and health technology assessment agencies were surveyed to identify additional rapid review products. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Detailed data was collected from the included reviews on study and reporting characteristics and variables significant to rapid reviews (e.g. nomenclature, definition). We evaluated the quality of conduct and reporting of included rapid reviews using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists. Compliance with each checklist item was examined, and the sum of adequately reported items was used to describe overall compliance. Rapid reviews were stratified to explore differences in compliance related to publication status. The association between compliance and time to completion or length of publication was explored through univariate regression. RESULTS: Sixty-six rapid reviews were included. There were heterogeneous nomenclature, research questions and approaches to rapid reviews. Compliance with AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists was poor. Published rapid reviews were compliant with individual PRISMA items more often than unpublished reviews, but no difference was seen in AMSTAR item compliance overall. There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items. CONCLUSIONS: Transparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete. Further research may be warranted to explore reporting and conduct guidelines specific to rapid reviews and how these guidelines may be applied across the spectrum of rapid review approaches. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
format Online
Article
Text
id pubmed-4862155
institution National Center for Biotechnology Information
language English
publishDate 2016
publisher BioMed Central
record_format MEDLINE/PubMed
spelling pubmed-48621552016-05-11 Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines Kelly, Shannon E Moher, David Clifford, Tammy J Syst Rev Research BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available instruments. The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014. METHODS: We performed a comprehensive literature search for rapid reviews using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library) through December 31, 2014. Grey literature was searched thoroughly, and health technology assessment agencies were surveyed to identify additional rapid review products. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Detailed data was collected from the included reviews on study and reporting characteristics and variables significant to rapid reviews (e.g. nomenclature, definition). We evaluated the quality of conduct and reporting of included rapid reviews using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists. Compliance with each checklist item was examined, and the sum of adequately reported items was used to describe overall compliance. Rapid reviews were stratified to explore differences in compliance related to publication status. The association between compliance and time to completion or length of publication was explored through univariate regression. RESULTS: Sixty-six rapid reviews were included. There were heterogeneous nomenclature, research questions and approaches to rapid reviews. Compliance with AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists was poor. Published rapid reviews were compliant with individual PRISMA items more often than unpublished reviews, but no difference was seen in AMSTAR item compliance overall. There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items. CONCLUSIONS: Transparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete. Further research may be warranted to explore reporting and conduct guidelines specific to rapid reviews and how these guidelines may be applied across the spectrum of rapid review approaches. ELECTRONIC SUPPLEMENTARY MATERIAL: The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users. BioMed Central 2016-05-10 /pmc/articles/PMC4862155/ /pubmed/27160255 http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9 Text en © Kelly et al. 2016 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
Kelly, Shannon E
Moher, David
Clifford, Tammy J
Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines
title Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines
title_full Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines
title_fullStr Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines
title_full_unstemmed Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines
title_short Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines
title_sort quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with prisma and amstar guidelines
topic Research
url https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4862155/
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/27160255
http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9
work_keys_str_mv AT kellyshannone qualityofconductandreportinginrapidreviewsanexplorationofcompliancewithprismaandamstarguidelines
AT moherdavid qualityofconductandreportinginrapidreviewsanexplorationofcompliancewithprismaandamstarguidelines
AT cliffordtammyj qualityofconductandreportinginrapidreviewsanexplorationofcompliancewithprismaandamstarguidelines