Comparison of a full systematic review versus a rapid review approaches to assess a newborn screening test for tyrosinemia type 1. Taylor-Phillips S et al. Res Synth Methods. 2017 Jul 13.
This is exactly the sort of thing I want to see, a comparison of systematic versus rapid reviews. A couple of points:
- Much of the analysis focuses on process outcomes (e.g. RR missing papers). My main interest is in the outcomes – do they give the same answer? And, to be clear, I’m not saying that’s bad – but outcome interests me not things like missed papers. And, a continuation of the point, SRs will typically miss the unpublished studies (on average 50% of trials). So, SR miss 50%, RR misses 55-60% (possibly). But other issues, around quality scoring is – possibly important – again it’d be good to see how that affects outcomes.
- Not enough of them – I wish they had had the funding to do 50 of them! I suspect the authors would like that as well!!