Andrea C Tricco1, Wasifa Zarin2, Jesmin Antony2, Brian Hutton3, David Moher3, Diana Sherifali4, Sharon E Straus5. 1. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th Floor, 155 College St., Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. 2. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada. 3. Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, Centre for Practice Changing Research Building, 501 Smyth Road, PO BOX 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada. 4. School of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West-HSC 3N24E, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada. 5. Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 Kings College Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada. Electronic address: sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVES: To solicit experiences with and perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policy makers, industry, journal editors, and health care providers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An international survey of rapid review producers and modified Delphi. RESULTS: Forty rapid review producers responded on our survey (63% response rate). Eighty-eight rapid reviews with 31 different names were reported. Rapid review commissioning organizations were predominantly government (78%) and health care (58%) organizations. Several rapid review approaches were identified, including updating the literature search of previous reviews (92%); limiting the search strategy by date of publication (88%); and having only one reviewer screen (85%), abstract data (84%), and assess the quality of studies (86%). The modified Delphi included input from 113 stakeholders on the rapid review approaches from the survey. Approach 1 (search limited by date and language; study selection by one reviewer only, and data abstraction and quality appraisal conducted by one reviewer and one verifier) was ranked the most feasible (72%, 81/113 responses), with the lowest perceived risk of bias (12%, 12/103); it also ranked second in timeliness (37%, 38/102) and fifth in comprehensiveness (5%, 5/100). CONCLUSION: Rapid reviews have many names and approaches, and some methods might be more desirable than others.
OBJECTIVES: To solicit experiences with and perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policy makers, industry, journal editors, and health care providers. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: An international survey of rapid review producers and modified Delphi. RESULTS: Forty rapid review producers responded on our survey (63% response rate). Eighty-eight rapid reviews with 31 different names were reported. Rapid review commissioning organizations were predominantly government (78%) and health care (58%) organizations. Several rapid review approaches were identified, including updating the literature search of previous reviews (92%); limiting the search strategy by date of publication (88%); and having only one reviewer screen (85%), abstract data (84%), and assess the quality of studies (86%). The modified Delphi included input from 113 stakeholders on the rapid review approaches from the survey. Approach 1 (search limited by date and language; study selection by one reviewer only, and data abstraction and quality appraisal conducted by one reviewer and one verifier) was ranked the most feasible (72%, 81/113 responses), with the lowest perceived risk of bias (12%, 12/103); it also ranked second in timeliness (37%, 38/102) and fifth in comprehensiveness (5%, 5/100). CONCLUSION: Rapid reviews have many names and approaches, and some methods might be more desirable than others.
Authors: Andrea C Tricco; Jesmin Antony; Wasifa Zarin; Lisa Strifler; Marco Ghassemi; John Ivory; Laure Perrier; Brian Hutton; David Moher; Sharon E Straus Journal: BMC Med Date: 2015-09-16 Impact factor: 8.775