This is my first post in ages, in part, inspired by a talk I recently gave on rapid reviews. A small portion of the talk was given over to a usual moan – about those systematic reviewers who used to be very critical (and sometime rude) about rapid reviews and who are now flooding into the rapid review ‘space’ and falling over themselves to codify/control … Continue reading Reviews versus answers
A search for rapid review in PubMed has shown 1421 results: As you can see the majority have been since 2020 (819 or 57%). Of these roughly half are related to Covid-19 (433 of the 819). But, in the same era there were around 82,000 systematic reviews (all topics) of which around 5,000 related to Covid-19. So, if we say there were 83,421 evidence syntheses … Continue reading Rapid reviews, how things have changed
A long standing question is to what extent restricting the language choice to English makes much difference. In this post we highlight four articles that tackle this issue. Three of the four found it made minimal difference while the fourth (by far the oldest) suggested it may cause a bias. There is now another paper to be added to the discussion: Restricting evidence syntheses of … Continue reading Language restricting and RRs
A title search for rapid review in PubMed is interesting: 2018 – 64 records 2019 – 60 records 2020 – 248 records 2021 – 93 records, but we’re only three months in to the year, so that suggests around 370 records I suspect Covid-19 is a big driver and if you search for rapid review[Title] AND covid-19 you get: 2020 – 155 records (62.5%) 2021 … Continue reading The continued growth of rapid reviews
The crisis of Covid-19 has seen an explosion of rapid reviews. Has the pandemic seen the final acceptance of rapid reviews? This blog was started at the end of 2015 and in the space of five years has seen a dramatic change in fortune/position of rapid reviews. Many of the most critical voices are now actively embracing them. This is broadly great, but the slight … Continue reading Rapid reviews and Covid-19
A simple exercise, search PubMed for the term ‘rapid review’ and explore the number of results per year: I’ve only included results from 2000 onwards. You can see a rapid rise from 2012 with a sharp acceleration this year, no doubt linked to Covid-19. Comparing the numbers with systematic reviews: 2010 – SRs = 6,128 | RRs = 9. So, 680 SRs for every RR. … Continue reading An explosion of rapid reviews
Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study Ewald H et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Conclusion: Abbreviated literature searches often led to identical or very similar effect estimates as comprehensive searches with slightly increased confidence intervals. Relevant deviations may occur. Apart from the conclusion, some key observations: “Searching multiple data sources may increase the number of studies, … Continue reading New article: Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study
Rapid reviews for rapid decision-making during the coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic, Norway, 2020 Euro Surveill. 2020;25(19) The abstract reads: “In response to urgent needs for updated evidence for decision-making on various aspects related to coronavirus disease (COVID-19), the Norwegian Institute of Public Health established a rapid review team. Using simplified processes and shortcuts, this team produces summary reviews on request within 1–3 days that inform … Continue reading Unfortunately, this made me laugh
Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2020 This is an important topic and it’s always good to receive evidence relating to evidence reviewing. However, I do have an issue with two issues: The outcome measure used – articles found. The denominator – comparison with systematic reviews. Outcomes Evidence reviews primary outcome is to … Continue reading Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial
Today marks a milestone. NICE has just released COVID-19 rapid evidence summary: acute use of nonsteroidal anti-inflammatory drugs (NSAIDs) for people with or at risk of COVID-19 and Cochrane have released Quarantine Alone or in Combination With Other Public Health Measures to Control COVID-19: A Rapid Review. Two significant producers of evidence reviews have now, after years of resistance, embraced the rapid review. Has the … Continue reading Rapid evidence summaries – NICE and Cochrane
Rapid-Reviews.info 