Sampling and evidence synthesis: how much is enough?

At the heart of evidence synthesis is a fundamental question which seems unresolved and rarely articulated: Of the evidence produced in trials, for a given intervention, how much do you need to produce a fit-for-purpose evidence review? In my more naive years I assumed systematic reviews got all the evidence. Alas, that is clearly not the case. Therefore, if its not all the evidence it’s … Continue reading Sampling and evidence synthesis: how much is enough?

Screening studies for reviews: two papers

Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. Waffenschmidt S BMC Medical Research Methodology 2019;19:132 This concludes: “Single screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in … Continue reading Screening studies for reviews: two papers

Three new articles:

Article 1: Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study. Nussbaumer-Streit B et al. 2019 Nov 4. Conclusion: Exclusion of non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and could be a viable methodological shortcut, especially for rapid reviews. Comment: Nice to see (not) that the systematic review world appear to care little for … Continue reading Three new articles:

Another two ‘new’ articles

Following on from my post a few days ago (Three ‘new’ articles) I post another couple:   The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports. Spry C et al. Res Synth Methods. 2018 Dec;9(4):521-526. Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review. Arevalo-Rodriguez I … Continue reading Another two ‘new’ articles

Three ‘new’ articles

Three articles, which I’d previously not added to the blog (hence, not really new):   Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage. Langlois E et al. BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Feb 5;4(1):e001178 Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR). Pandor A et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;114:22-29 A … Continue reading Three ‘new’ articles

Does a rapid review version of a large epidemiological systematic review fail to identify many eligible studies, and what implications does this have for the results of the review?

Does a rapid review version of a large epidemiological systematic review fail to identify many eligible studies, and what implications does this have for the results of the review? Barnish M. Oral Presentation, Society for Social Medicine and Population Health and International Epidemiology Association European Congress Annual Scientific Meeting 2019 Really interesting oral presentation (abstract below). Lots of really interesting data: “114 studies were eligible for … Continue reading Does a rapid review version of a large epidemiological systematic review fail to identify many eligible studies, and what implications does this have for the results of the review?

Rapid review articles, so far, in 2019

I’ve been trying to keep on top of articles relating to rapid review methods and the long list can be found here. After significant growth in papers over the last 8-10 years there was, last year, a drop-off in methods papers (that I could find). This year has been marginally better, but still not loads. Here are the ones for this year:   To HTA … Continue reading Rapid review articles, so far, in 2019

Developing a fully automated evidence synthesis tool for identifying, assessing and collating the evidence

Abstract Evidence synthesis is a key element of evidence-based medicine. However, it is currently hampered by being labour intensive meaning that many trials are not incorporated into robust evidence syntheses and that many are out of date. To overcome this, a variety of techniques are being explored, including using automation technology. Here, we describe a fully automated evidence synthesis system for intervention studies, one that … Continue reading Developing a fully automated evidence synthesis tool for identifying, assessing and collating the evidence

Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations

Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations J Clin Epidemiol. Wang L et al.   Great to see this abstract!  Without the abstract I’m not sure how rapid ‘rapid’ actually is. Also, it’s unclear how close the results were, aside from the very nice ‘tease’ of: “Compared to an NMA including all unique trials, we … Continue reading Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations

An interesting exchange on Twitter – reflections

Last week I posted An interesting exchange on Twitter. In that I ended with this: When might: the largest trial suffice? when might a rapid review suffice? when might a systematic review suffice? when might you need to do a full systematic review, using all the data (including unpublished data including CSRs as seen with the Tamiflu work of Tom Jefferson)? This triggered further exchanges … Continue reading An interesting exchange on Twitter – reflections