Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez1, Paloma Moreno-Nunez2, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit3, Karen R Steingart4, Laura Del Mar González Peña5, Diana Buitrago-Garcia5, David Kaunelis6, José Ignacio Emparanza7, Pablo Alonso-Coello8, Andrea C Tricco9, Javier Zamora10. 1. Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain. Electronic address: inarev7@yahoo.com. 2. Department of Preventive Medicine, Hospital Ramon y Cajal (IRYCIS), Madrid, Spain. 3. Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Clinical Epidemiology, Danube University Krems, Krems, Austria. 4. Department of Clinical Sciences, Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine, Liverpool, UK. 5. Especialización en Epidemiología Clínica, Fundación Universitaria de Ciencias de la Salud (FUCS), Hospital de San José, Bogotá, Colombia. 6. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), Ottawa, Canada. 7. Clinical Epidemiology Unit, Hospital Universitario Donostia, BioDonostia, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, San Sebastian, Spain. 8. Centro Cochrane Iberoamericano-Servicio de Epidemiología Clínica y Salud Pública, Instituto de Investigación Biomédica Sant Pau (IIB Sant Pau), CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Barcelona, Spain. 9. Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital. Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Canada; Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality, Joanna Briggs Institute Centre of Excellence, Queen's University, Kingston, Canada. 10. Clinical Biostatistics Unit, Hospital Universitario Ramón y Cajal, IRYCIS, CIBER of Epidemiology and Public Health, Madrid, Spain.
Abstract
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence. RESULTS: We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.
BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence. RESULTS: We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses. CONCLUSION: Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.
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