I was at Evidence Live last week to discuss the Community Rapid Review idea. It was good to see a number of sessions on rapid reviews and in one of those (where I was in the audience) a question was asked relating to comparisons between ‘rapid’ and ‘systematic’ reviews. I suggested that, for Evidence Live 2018, there should be a RR ‘hack’! At the start … Continue reading Evidence Live 2018: Rapid review hackathon
I’m just back from Evidence Live where I ran a workshop on the community rapid review idea. I spoke to many people about rapid reviews, and it’s interesting how the tide was turning (by the rise in interest in RRs). During one discussion the absurdity struck me. Systematic reviews Fantasy = you include all trials Reality = as 50% of trials (on average) are unpublished … Continue reading Does this even make sense?
The Community Rapid Review idea has been discussed for a while now and the final stage, before we move to production, is coming very soon. Next week I will be running a workshop at Evidence Live on the idea. It’ll be an interactive exploration of the thinking behind the idea and will hopefully see some final constructive criticism to guide the final product. If you’re … Continue reading Evidence Live: Community Rapid Review
Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers recently published the above article on the BMJ Blog. As you’d expect with these authors it’s a great read. I’d like to highlight one section – that’s particularly relevant to the issue of rapid reviews (Note my emphasis): Whether the precise non-publication rate is 30%, 40%, or 50%, it is still a serious waste of the roughly $180 billion annually … Continue reading Can it really be true that 50% of research is unpublished?