As part of updating the Trip Database I noticed the AHRQ have a new category ‘Rapid Evidence Product’ which currently has two entries: Patient Navigation Models for Lung Cancer (Dec 2018) Addressing Social Isolation To Improve the Health of Older Adults: A Rapid Review (Feb 2019) To whet your appetite this is how the method appears in the abstract of the latter review: Methods. We … Continue reading AHRQ dipping their toe in to the ‘rapid’ world
I spotted this news via the BMJ and I wanted to share as these (CSRs) are an important component of the debate around rapid versus systematic reviews. I have long argued that terms such as ‘rapid’ and ‘systematic’ are mis-leading and the CSR helps illustrate this point. Rapid – is a relative term and open to interpretation. I would see rapid as taking a day … Continue reading FDA to begin releasing clinical study reports in pilot programme
Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Dec 24. Marshall I, Marshall R, Wallace B, Brassey J, Thomas J. I was delighted to be part of this study (which is open access, so full-text is here) which simulated the effects of various rapid review ‘shortcuts’ and the implications for the effect size estimates relative to the full systematic … Continue reading To what extent does adding poor quality ingredients to the review ‘bake’ means we get a bad cake?
As mentioned previously we will start the build of our community rapid review system in early 2019. We’ve talked about it for so long now it seems like we just need to get on with it and hope we produce a system that people want to use. We’re not sure of the likely delivery date, but it should take 4-6 months to build and test. … Continue reading A brief update
I gave a session on rapid reviews at ScHARR yesterday. It was in two parts: Highlighting the problems with systematic reviews and possible benefits of rapid reviews Discussing rapid review methods, including the Trip Rapid Review (TRR) system It was (from my perspective at least) interesting, with lots of discussion including significant challenge to my proposals – which I relish. There were lots of points made … Continue reading Trip Rapid Review system; democratising?
In thinking about the Trip Rapid Review System (TRRS) I see it being a multi-step process supported, where possible, with technology to automate the process as much as possible. The steps are as follows: Question setting/clarification, including the extraction of search terms. Search and document selection, including various techniques to unearth articles that may have been missed. Data extraction to produce an evidence table. Narrative … Continue reading Trip Rapid Review System – structure
Things move slowly and I’ve discussed – in 2017 – the notion of a Trip Rapid Review system. In February 2017 I posted Community Rapid Review v3 and I also ran a workshop at Evidence Live 2017 to further inform my thinking. Things got in the way – principally our automated review/map system – and now that the phase 1 of that is finished we’ve moved … Continue reading Trip Rapid Review System
In my quest for understanding I keep coming back to some fundamental questions relating to evidence synthesis and I’m often left wondering about the evidence underpinning what appears to be assumptions. So, the first question I’m requesting evidence for is: What is the evidence that systematic reviews give an accurate assessment of the effectiveness of an intervention? There, simple. We’re always extolling people … Continue reading Where’s the evidence?
I asked the following question to the EBHC mail-list: “I’m wondering how one could test the following so would welcome advice. Question: Assuming we have a finite resource for evidence synthesis which is better 1 systematic review or, say, 5-10 rapid reviews? Context: There is an opportunity cost associated with doing the labour intensive systematic reviews how do we know we are using this … Continue reading Methods Q: Rapid versus systematic reviews – assessing which generates most benefit/least harm
SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) Decision Tool project Authors: Eva Kaltenthaler, Katy Cooper, Marrissa Martyn St James, Abdullah Pandor, Ruth Wong ScHARR, University of Sheffield This is a project outline with the following aims: The aim of the proposed study is to validate the decision tool by achieving consensus using the Delphi method among those involved in rapid reviewing. This will ensure that the most important … Continue reading SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) Decision Tool project