I recently had the pleasure of talking about rapid reviews in Liverpool. One point that got raised in the discussion was that of methodological shortcuts. Typically, rapid reviews are portrayed as ‘cut down’ systematic reviews ie the starting point is the systematic review process and you then reduce/remove steps to arrive at your rapid review methodology (BTW my post Different approaches to rapidity discusses this and … Continue reading Shortcuts
Reading the ‘Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews‘ (posted here recently) got me thinking! It seems to me that what they were doing was very similar to a very specific search of the literature (in this case matching keywords to words in document titles). Typically, in evidence synthesis, the opposite (a sensitive search) tries to … Continue reading Sensitive searching of few or specific search of many…?
Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews. Rathbone J et al. Systematic Reviews 2017 6:233 Background Citation screening for scoping searches and rapid review is time-consuming and inefficient, often requiring days or sometimes months to complete. We examined the reliability of PICo-based title-only screening using keyword searches based on the PICo elements—Participants, Interventions, and Comparators, but … Continue reading Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews
Testing the effectiveness of simplified search strategies for updating systematic reviews. Rice M et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;88:148-153 Premise: To test the overall effectiveness of a simplified search strategy (SSS) for updating 9 systematic reviews. Conclusion: SSS performed well for clinically focused topics and, with a median sensitivity of 100%, could be a viable alternative to a conventional comprehensive search strategy for updating this … Continue reading New post: Testing the effectiveness of simplified search strategies for updating systematic reviews
Two new papers of interest: Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. Hartling L et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017 17:64 Conclusions: The majority of SRs searched for non-English and unpublished studies; however, these represented a small proportion of included studies and rarely impacted the results … Continue reading A couple of new papers
As far as I can tell we undertake evidence synthesis to better understand the effectiveness of an intervention. The rationale is that the greater the accumulation of evidence the greater the understanding of how good an intervention is. This is typically characterised by a reduction in the size of the confidence intervals in meta-analyses. Put it another way, we attempt to be as certain as … Continue reading Theorising about evidence synthesis – is it about the cost, language or other?
This work has been supported via the KConnect project (a Horizon 2020 EU-funded project) and on Wednesday we had to present the work of the whole consortium at the EU in Luxembourg. The response was overwhelmingly positive and so I wish to share a bit more of the work. A slight bit of context; I have been involved in a number of automation projects and … Continue reading From the Trip blog: Automated reviews – very positive progress
Copy of the email I’ve just received from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Rapid Review Guidebook As public health organizations across Canada adopt and implement evidence-informed approaches to public health decision-making, there is a need for up to date evidence that can be applied to local contexts. An effective way to synthesize current evidence on a topic is to conduct a rapid review … Continue reading Rapid Review Guidebook from NCCMT
In the recent post relating to trading certainty for speed I highlighted that the authors stated: “Participants of our survey, on average, viewed 10% as the maximum tolerable risk of getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review” My issue with this is that there was no definition of what ‘incorrect’ was. So, I emailed one of the authors: “A fascinating paper, thank you. One … Continue reading Update from author: Trading certainty for speed
In case you didn’t know, Cochrane has a Rapid Reviews Methods Group. They have just released their second newsletter, the content of which is below. To read the full newsletter, click here. Cochrane RRMG at the Global Evidence Summit Cochrane RRMG hosts workshop in Cape Town A panoramic view of rapid reviews Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems Rapid needs appraisal to inform outbreak … Continue reading Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group Newsletter