Sampling in evidence synthesis

One of the main criticisms of ‘rapid reviews’ is that they cuts corner (relative to systematic reviews) and therefore it makes the likely to be – in some way – ‘wrong’ (however that is defined).  This negativity is often taken from the perspective that a full systematic review is – in some way – ‘right’ (again, however that is defined). What is increasingly clear to me … Continue reading Sampling in evidence synthesis

New article: User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making

User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making. Peterson K et al. Systematic Reviews 2016 5:132 Background To provide evidence synthesis for faster-paced healthcare decision-making, rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined alternative to standard systematic reviews. In 2012, the Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Program (VA ESP) added rapid reviews to support Veterans … Continue reading New article: User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making

The nature of evidence synthesis

Evidence Live has come and gone and I had a wonderful chat with Iain Chalmers.  Iain is a marvel and in the course of the conversation I had a ‘light bulb’ moment relating to the nature of rapid versus systematic reviews.  I’m increasingly unhappy with the distinction and I am of the view that the debate should not be ‘rapid’ versus ‘systematic’ but how, for a given context, can … Continue reading The nature of evidence synthesis

Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews

Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri-food public health. Pham MT et al. Res Synth Methods. 2016 Jun 10. This paper looks really interesting/important.  I’ve not really got time to read and digest is properly but this image shows why I’m so excited by it: As you can see it’s taking an initial SR and … Continue reading Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews

New article: Use of Knowledge Synthesis and Translation Methodologies as the Basis of an Evidence Informed Evaluation of Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis.

Use of Knowledge Synthesis and Translation Methodologies as the Basis of an Evidence Informed Evaluation of Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis. Waddell LA. A Thesis presented to The University of Guelph. 2016   Also added to List of articles: Non-medical rapid review papers Continue reading New article: Use of Knowledge Synthesis and Translation Methodologies as the Basis of an Evidence Informed Evaluation of Mycobacterium avium ssp. paratuberculosis.

Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews

Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Kelly SE et al. Systematic Reviews 2016 5:79 This is an important issue in relation to rapid reviews and is connected with issues that are consistently raised in relation to rapid reviews, that of reproducibility and transparency.  The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct … Continue reading Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews

Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process

Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. Peterson J et al. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. 2016 Jun 1.   BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Scoping review design represents a methodology that allows assessment of emerging evidence, as well as a first step in research development. Despite its increasing use, to date no article reflecting use of scoping review methodology has been submitted for review at JAANP. … Continue reading Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process

The Vienna Principles

I’ve been aware of these for a while but it was requested I not share.  But, now they’ve been published elsewhere, I thought I’d share them now!  In October 2015 members of the International Collaboration for the Automation of System Reviews (ICASR) met and drafted the following: Systematic reviews involve multiple tasks, each with different issues, but all must be improved. Automation may assist with all … Continue reading The Vienna Principles

Article review: Using GRADE to respond to health questions with different levels of urgency

Using GRADE to respond to health questions with different levels of urgency. Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Environ Int. 2016 Apr 25. pii: S0160-4120(16)30107-6 GRADE is a method of assessing the certainty in evidence (also known as quality of evidence or confidence in effect estimates) and the strength of recommendations in health care.  In the paper the authors acknowledge that trustworthy answers are required across different … Continue reading Article review: Using GRADE to respond to health questions with different levels of urgency