OBJECTIVES: There are many rapid review methods; however, there is little pragmatic guidance on which methods to select. This study aimed to reach consensus among international rapid review experts outlining areas to consider when selecting approaches for rapid reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-round modified online Delphi survey was conducted between May and July 2018. Participants were asked to rank the importance of a predefined list of 19 items. A consensus definition of at least 70% agreement for each item was decided a priori. RESULTS: Thirty experts from ten countries participated in round 1 and 24 in round 2. During round 1, consensus was reached on all items. One additional item on quality assessment was suggested by respondents and comments suggested wording changes to improve clarity and understanding of the tool. Respondents in the second round indicated a high level of importance and all 20 items achieved consensus. These items addressed interaction with commissioners, scoping and searching the evidence-base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. CONCLUSION: International consensus was reached to produce the SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) decision tool for planning rapid reviews and will lead to improved shared understanding between review teams and review commissioners.
OBJECTIVES: There are many rapid review methods; however, there is little pragmatic guidance on which methods to select. This study aimed to reach consensus among international rapid review experts outlining areas to consider when selecting approaches for rapid reviews. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: A two-round modified online Delphi survey was conducted between May and July 2018. Participants were asked to rank the importance of a predefined list of 19 items. A consensus definition of at least 70% agreement for each item was decided a priori. RESULTS: Thirty experts from ten countries participated in round 1 and 24 in round 2. During round 1, consensus was reached on all items. One additional item on quality assessment was suggested by respondents and comments suggested wording changes to improve clarity and understanding of the tool. Respondents in the second round indicated a high level of importance and all 20 items achieved consensus. These items addressed interaction with commissioners, scoping and searching the evidence-base, data extraction and synthesis methods, and reporting of rapid review methods. CONCLUSION: International consensus was reached to produce the SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) decision tool for planning rapid reviews and will lead to improved shared understanding between review teams and review commissioners.
Authors: Sheikh Mohammed Shariful Islam; Rebecca Nourse; Riaz Uddin; Jonathan C Rawstorn; Ralph Maddison Journal: Front Cardiovasc Med Date: 2022-06-29
Authors: Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez; Karen R Steingart; Andrea C Tricco; Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit; David Kaunelis; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Susan Baxter; Patrick M Bossuyt; José Ignacio Emparanza; Javier Zamora Journal: BMC Med Res Methodol Date: 2020-05-13 Impact factor: 4.615
Authors: Petra Meier; Robin Purshouse; Marion Bain; Clare Bambra; Richard Bentall; Mark Birkin; John Brazier; Alan Brennan; Mark Bryan; Julian Cox; Greg Fell; Elizabeth Goyder; Alison Heppenstall; John Holmes; Ceri Hughes; Asif Ishaq; Visakan Kadirkamanathan; Nik Lomax; Ruth Lupton; Suzy Paisley; Katherine Smith; Ellen Stewart; Mark Strong; Elizabeth Such; Aki Tsuchiya; Craig Watkins Journal: Wellcome Open Res Date: 2019-11-12
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