Lisa Hartling1, Jeanne-Marie Guise2, Elisabeth Kato3, Johanna Anderson2, Suzanne Belinson4, Elise Berliner3, Donna M Dryden5, Robin Featherstone5, Matthew D Mitchell6, Makalapua Motu'apuaka2, Hussein Noorani4, Robin Paynter2, Karen A Robinson7, Karen Schoelles6, Craig A Umscheid6, Evelyn Whitlock8. 1. Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. Electronic address: hartling@ualberta.ca. 2. Scientific Resource Center for the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program, Portland VA Medical Center, Portland VA Research Foundation, Portland, OR, USA. 3. Center for Outcomes and Evidence, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, Rockville, MD, USA. 4. Office of Clinical Affairs, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, Chicago, IL, USA. 5. Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Canada. 6. ECRI Institute-Penn Medicine AHRQ EPC and the Center for Evidence-Based Practice and the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, PA, USA. 7. Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, Baltimore, MD, USA. 8. Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates, Portland, OR, USA.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: Describe characteristics of rapid reviews and examine the impact of methodological variations on their reliability and validity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a literature review and interviews with organizations that produce rapid reviews or related products to identify methods, guidance, empiric evidence, and current practices. RESULTS: We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations (production time, 5 minutes to 8 months). Methods differed from systematic reviews at all stages. As time frames increased, methods became more rigorous; however, restrictions on database searching, inclusion criteria, data extracted, and independent dual review remained. We categorized rapid products based on extent of synthesis. "Inventories" list what evidence is available. "Rapid responses" present best available evidence with no formal synthesis. "Rapid reviews" synthesize the quality of and findings from the evidence. "Automated approaches" generate meta-analyses in response to user-defined queries. Rapid products rely on a close relationship with end users and support specific decisions in an identified time frame. Limited empiric evidence exists comparing rapid and systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid products have tremendous methodological variation; categorization based on time frame or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs.
OBJECTIVES: Describe characteristics of rapid reviews and examine the impact of methodological variations on their reliability and validity. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We conducted a literature review and interviews with organizations that produce rapid reviews or related products to identify methods, guidance, empiric evidence, and current practices. RESULTS: We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations (production time, 5 minutes to 8 months). Methods differed from systematic reviews at all stages. As time frames increased, methods became more rigorous; however, restrictions on database searching, inclusion criteria, data extracted, and independent dual review remained. We categorized rapid products based on extent of synthesis. "Inventories" list what evidence is available. "Rapid responses" present best available evidence with no formal synthesis. "Rapid reviews" synthesize the quality of and findings from the evidence. "Automated approaches" generate meta-analyses in response to user-defined queries. Rapid products rely on a close relationship with end users and support specific decisions in an identified time frame. Limited empiric evidence exists comparing rapid and systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS: Rapid products have tremendous methodological variation; categorization based on time frame or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs.
Authors: Lisa Hartling; Jeanne-Marie Guise; Susanne Hempel; Robin Featherstone; Matthew D Mitchell; Makalapua L Motu'apuaka; Karen A Robinson; Karen Schoelles; Annette Totten; Evelyn Whitlock; Timothy J Wilt; Johanna Anderson; Elise Berliner; Aysegul Gozu; Elisabeth Kato; Robin Paynter; Craig A Umscheid Journal: Syst Rev Date: 2017-02-17
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
Authors: Lisa Hartling; Robin Featherstone; Megan Nuspl; Kassi Shave; Donna M Dryden; Ben Vandermeer Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2016-09-26 Impact factor: 4.615
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