I was at the wonderful Evidence Live and presented on rapid reviews. One question came from the wonderful Iain Chalmers who asked about the potential for harm if health professionals followed the advice of a RR that was subsequently shown to be wrong. Later, in conversation, it became clear that ‘wrong’ meant a reversal of conclusion – so the SR might say the intervention is … Continue reading Systematic versus rapid reviews – what about harms?
Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study. Nussbaumer-Streit B. et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jun 1 A paper highlighting that abbreviated searches typically produce very similar results. The authors conclude: “If decision makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high … Continue reading Two new posts (well, new to the site)
I had the pleasure of presenting at the HTAi 2018 conference in Vancouver which ended yesterday. Here is a picture from the event, shared as (a) the unplanned colour co-ordination is impeccable and (b) people have commented I look like a game show host. I talked about, you guessed it, rapid reviews. My emphasis was on the fact that, whatever the review type, you never … Continue reading HTAi 2018
Straw man: A logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down. I was sent a paper to review earlier this week and I was quite strong in my feedback, so I thought I should share my frustration and write a blog – so here it is… A central tenet of the paper was that rapid reviews (RR) can be … Continue reading Straw man and the accuracy of rapid reviews
Maureen Dobbins is the Scientific Director at the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools and last year gave a webinar on the ‘Rapid Review Guidebook’, here it is: Continue reading Spotlight on Methods and Tools: Rapid Review Guidebook
Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies. Stevens A et al. 2018 This is a protocol describing the development of reporting guidelines for rapid reviews (following similar work in systematic reviews. See the PRISMA website). The authors state: “The objective of this project is to create an evidence-based, consensus-derived minimum guidance for uthors writing reports of rapid reviews of primary studies.” The … Continue reading Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies
Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful? Moore G et al Health Research Policy and Systems 2018 16:17 Abstract Background Rapid reviews are increasingly used by policy agencies to access relevant research in short timeframes. Despite the growing number of programmes, little is known about how rapid reviews are used by health policy agencies. This study examined whether and how rapid reviews commissioned using a … Continue reading Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful?
I came across two papers that have been submitted to a conference – but I’ve no idea which conference! The first author is the same – Katy Cooper: The first is Selecting Rapid Review Methods For Health Technology Assessment which concludes: “Rapid review methods need to be chosen to fit the needs of the review, each of which may have different challenges. Collaboration between those producing rapid … Continue reading Two oral conference submissions from Uni of Sheffield
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…?