Trip Rapid Review system; democratising?

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?

Trip Rapid Review System – structure

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

Trip Rapid Review System

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

Where’s the evidence?

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?

Methods Q: Rapid versus systematic reviews – assessing which generates most benefit/least harm

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

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

Using regulatory data

In my recent post I expressed frustration with the direction of travel of rapid reviews and one thing I highlighted was the lack of work on using regulatory data.  This prompted two responses highlighting two separate papers: How to use FDA drug approval documents for evidence syntheses, BMJ 2018 Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the … Continue reading Using regulatory data

Where are we going with rapid reviews? #frustrating

A while back I wrote a piece Different approaches to rapidity which suggested there are two ways of doing a rapid review: Process – take the systematic review and take short cuts Outcome – what’s the optimal way of getting to the desired outcome I’m increasingly concerned that all the focus is on the former and not the latter. My concern is based on a variety … Continue reading Where are we going with rapid reviews? #frustrating

The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias

The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias by Lars Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche, Tom Jefferson (BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2018) This is a highly critical article pointing out that the review missed nearly half of eligible trials.  They also land some heavy punches with comments such as: “Cochrane’s public relations of the review were uncritical“ “In our view, this is not … Continue reading The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias

Value of Information to help with the SR v RR debate?

I posted a post-Evidence Live blog last week which explored the notion of harms associated with doing rapid reviews (RRs). There is overlap from that post but I’ve had time to reflect and hopefully this will be better written. I’ve also added a vote!!  It may need re-writing again, if you think it needs clarification then please let me know! The question I was asked … Continue reading Value of Information to help with the SR v RR debate?