Emily Reynen1, Reid Robson2, John Ivory2, Jeremiah Hwee3, Sharon E Straus4, Ba' Pham2, Andrea C Tricco5. 1. Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Etherington Hall, Rooms 3032-3043, 94 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada. 2. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1 W8, Canada. 3. Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. 4. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1 W8, Canada; Department of Geriatric Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 Kings College Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada. 5. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1 W8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 155 College Street, 6th floor, Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada. Electronic address: triccoa@smh.ca.
Abstract
OBJECTIVE: To compare rapid reviews (RRs) to same-topic systematic reviews (SRs) for methods, studies included, and conclusions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective comparison of studies comparing RRs and SRs by searching four scoping reviews published between 2007 and 2016. Reports were included if literature searches were conducted within 24 months of each other and had common research questions. Reviews were compared for duration, studies included, population, intervention, comparisons, outcomes, study designs, quality, methods, and conclusions. RESULTS: Six studies containing 16 review pairs were included, covering nine topics. Overall, RRs used abbreviated methods more often: no search of grey literature, employing one reviewer to screen studies, engaging fewer experts, including fewer studies, and providing shorter reports, with poorer reporting quality and faster completion. Reviews reported similar conclusions, with two exceptions: one SR did not include a key study; separately, two RRs failed to highlight an association with early mortality identified by the SR. RRs tended to provide less detail and fewer considerations. CONCLUSION: RRs used several methodological shortcuts compared with SRs on the same topic. It was challenging to discern methodological differences because of retrospective assessment and substantial nonreporting, particularly for RRs.
OBJECTIVE: To compare rapid reviews (RRs) to same-topic systematic reviews (SRs) for methods, studies included, and conclusions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A retrospective comparison of studies comparing RRs and SRs by searching four scoping reviews published between 2007 and 2016. Reports were included if literature searches were conducted within 24 months of each other and had common research questions. Reviews were compared for duration, studies included, population, intervention, comparisons, outcomes, study designs, quality, methods, and conclusions. RESULTS: Six studies containing 16 review pairs were included, covering nine topics. Overall, RRs used abbreviated methods more often: no search of grey literature, employing one reviewer to screen studies, engaging fewer experts, including fewer studies, and providing shorter reports, with poorer reporting quality and faster completion. Reviews reported similar conclusions, with two exceptions: one SR did not include a key study; separately, two RRs failed to highlight an association with early mortality identified by the SR. RRs tended to provide less detail and fewer considerations. CONCLUSION: RRs used several methodological shortcuts compared with SRs on the same topic. It was challenging to discern methodological differences because of retrospective assessment and substantial nonreporting, particularly for RRs.
Authors: Anna R Gagliardi; Sheila Dunn; Angel Foster; Sherry L Grace; Courtney R Green; Nazilla Khanlou; Fiona A Miller; Donna E Stewart; Simone Vigod; Frances C Wright Journal: BMJ Open Date: 2019-02-13 Impact factor: 2.692
Authors: Jessica U Ramlakhan; Angel M Foster; Sherry L Grace; Courtney R Green; Donna E Stewart; Anna R Gagliardi Journal: Int J Equity Health Date: 2019-11-26
Authors: Sarah Larney; Dennis C Wendt; Camille Zolopa; Jacob A Burack; Roisin M O'Connor; Charlotte Corran; Jessica Lai; Emiliana Bomfim; Sarah DeGrace; Julianne Dumont Journal: Adolesc Res Rev Date: 2022-02-26