Literature DB >> 26123092

Rapid evidence assessment: increasing the transparency of an emerging methodology.

Tracey Varker1, David Forbes1, Lisa Dell1, Adele Weston2, Tracy Merlin3, Stephanie Hodson4, Meaghan O'Donnell1.   

Abstract

RATIONALE, AIMS AND
OBJECTIVES: Within the field of evidence-based practice, policy makers, health care professionals and consumers require timely reviews to inform decisions on efficacious health care and treatments. Rapid evidence assessment (REA), also known as rapid review, has emerged in recent years as a literature review methodology that fulfils this need. It highlights what is known in a clinical area to the target audience in a relatively short time frame.
METHODS: This article discusses the lack of transparency and limited critical appraisal that can occur in REA, and goes on to propose general principles for conducting a REA. The approach that we describe is consistent with the principles underlying systematic review methodology, but also makes allowances for the rapid delivery of information as required while utilizing explicit and reproducible methods at each stage.
RESULTS: Our method for conducting REA includes: developing an explicit research question in consultation with the end-users; clear definition of the components of the research question; development of a thorough and reproducible search strategy; development of explicit evidence selection criteria; and quality assessments and transparent decisions about the level of information to be obtained from each study. In addition, the REA may also include an assessment of the quality of the total body of evidence.
CONCLUSIONS: Transparent reporting of REA methodologies will provide greater clarity to end-users about how the information is obtained and about the trade-offs that are made between speed and rigour.
© 2015 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Keywords:  methods development; rapid evidence assessment; rapid review; review methodology

Mesh:

Year:  2015        PMID: 26123092     DOI: 10.1111/jep.12405

Source DB:  PubMed          Journal:  J Eval Clin Pract        ISSN: 1356-1294            Impact factor:   2.431


  18 in total

Review 1.  Clinical utility of F-18 FDG PET-CT in the initial evaluation of lung cancer.

Authors:  Poul Henning Madsen; Paw Christian Holdgaard; Janne Buck Christensen; Poul Flemming Høilund-Carlsen
Journal:  Eur J Nucl Med Mol Imaging       Date:  2016-05-11       Impact factor: 9.236

Review 2.  Practical Considerations for Using Online Methods to Engage Patients in Guideline Development.

Authors:  Sean Grant; Glen S Hazlewood; Holly L Peay; Ann Lucas; Ian Coulter; Arlene Fink; Dmitry Khodyakov
Journal:  Patient       Date:  2018-04       Impact factor: 3.883

Review 3.  Interventions to improve social circumstances of people with mental health conditions: a rapid evidence synthesis.

Authors:  Phoebe Barnett; Thomas Steare; Zainab Dedat; Stephen Pilling; Paul McCrone; Martin Knapp; Eleanor Cooke; Daphne Lamirel; Sarah Dawson; Peter Goldblatt; Stephani Hatch; Claire Henderson; Rachel Jenkins; T K; Karen Machin; Alan Simpson; Prisha Shah; Martin Stevens; Martin Webber; Sonia Johnson; Brynmor Lloyd-Evans
Journal:  BMC Psychiatry       Date:  2022-04-28       Impact factor: 4.144

Review 4.  What is an evidence map? A systematic review of published evidence maps and their definitions, methods, and products.

Authors:  Isomi M Miake-Lye; Susanne Hempel; Roberta Shanman; Paul G Shekelle
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-02-10

5.  Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses.

Authors:  Chantelle Garritty; Adrienne Stevens; Gerald Gartlehner; Valerie King; Chris Kamel
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2016-10-28

Review 6.  Economies of scale and scope in publicly funded biomedical and health research: evidence from the literature.

Authors:  Karla Hernandez-Villafuerte; Jon Sussex; Enora Robin; Sue Guthrie; Steve Wooding
Journal:  Health Res Policy Syst       Date:  2017-02-02

7.  Rapid Evidence Assessment of Mental Health Outcomes of Pandemics for Health Care Workers: Implications for the Covid-19 Pandemic.

Authors:  Sara Waring; Susan Giles
Journal:  Front Public Health       Date:  2021-05-21

8.  Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda.

Authors:  Julie Polisena; Chantelle Garritty; Craig A Umscheid; Chris Kamel; Kevin Samra; Jeannette Smith; Ann Vosilla
Journal:  Syst Rev       Date:  2015-09-26

9.  The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies.

Authors:  Eva Kaltenthaler; Katy Cooper; Abdullah Pandor; Marrissa Martyn-St James; Robin Chatters; Ruth Wong
Journal:  BMC Med Res Methodol       Date:  2016-08-26       Impact factor: 4.615

Review 10.  Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review.

Authors:  Ahmed M Abou-Setta; Maya Jeyaraman; Abdelhamid Attia; Hesham G Al-Inany; Mauricio Ferri; Mohammed T Ansari; Chantelle M Garritty; Kenneth Bond; Susan L Norris
Journal:  PLoS One       Date:  2016-12-08       Impact factor: 3.240

View more

北京卡尤迪生物科技股份有限公司 © 2022-2023.