An interesting exchange on Twitter – reflections

Last week I posted An interesting exchange on Twitter. In that I ended with this: When might: the largest trial suffice? when might a rapid review suffice? when might a systematic review suffice? when might you need to do a full systematic review, using all the data (including unpublished data including CSRs as seen with the Tamiflu work of Tom Jefferson)? This triggered further exchanges … Continue reading An interesting exchange on Twitter – reflections

An interesting exchange on Twitter

Last week I presented at the JBI European Symposium in Cardiff, one part of the discussion related to rapid reviews.  Following that a Twitter conversation started: There were other messages in the exchanges but you get the picture!  A few observations: I’m still unsure if James believes we need all the data or not when doing an evidence synthesis. Assuming we don’t need all the … Continue reading An interesting exchange on Twitter

Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol

Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation Diagnostic and Prognostic Research 2019 3:7. Arevalo-Rodriguez I et al The journal is not in PubMed so easily missed…:   Assessment of diagnostic tests, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of a patient’s health status, has increasingly … Continue reading Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol

The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews

The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews Turner RM, Bird SM, Higgins JP. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59202. An old paper but one someone pointed out recently and it’s one that mentions rapid reviews in a number of places, notably: “When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little … Continue reading The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews

To HTA or Not to HTA: Identifying the Factors Influencing the Rapid Review Outcome in Ireland

Shame this is behind a paywall as it looks really interesting!   Objectives Reimbursement systems are evolving and endeavor to balance access and affordability. One such evolution in Ireland is the compulsory rapid review (RR) process, the outcome from which is a recommendation for a health technology assessment (HTA) or no HTA. For drugs that avoid an HTA, evaluation times are shorter, lengthy price negotiations … Continue reading To HTA or Not to HTA: Identifying the Factors Influencing the Rapid Review Outcome in Ireland

AHRQ dipping their toe in to the ‘rapid’ world

As part of updating the Trip Database I noticed the AHRQ have a new category ‘Rapid Evidence Product’ which currently has two entries: Patient Navigation Models for Lung Cancer (Dec 2018) Addressing Social Isolation To Improve the Health of Older Adults: A Rapid Review (Feb 2019) To whet your appetite this is how the method appears in the abstract of the latter review: Methods. We … Continue reading AHRQ dipping their toe in to the ‘rapid’ world

FDA to begin releasing clinical study reports in pilot programme

I spotted this news via the BMJ and I wanted to share as these (CSRs) are an important component of the debate around rapid versus systematic reviews. I have long argued that terms such as ‘rapid’ and ‘systematic’ are mis-leading and the CSR helps illustrate this point. Rapid – is a relative term and open to interpretation. I would see rapid as taking a day … Continue reading FDA to begin releasing clinical study reports in pilot programme

To what extent does adding poor quality ingredients to the review ‘bake’ means we get a bad cake?

Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Dec 24. Marshall I, Marshall R, Wallace B, Brassey J, Thomas J. I was delighted to be part of this study (which is open access, so full-text is here) which simulated the effects of various rapid review ‘shortcuts’ and the implications for the effect size estimates relative to the full systematic … Continue reading To what extent does adding poor quality ingredients to the review ‘bake’ means we get a bad cake?

Trip Rapid Review system; democratising?

I gave a session on rapid reviews at ScHARR yesterday. It was in two parts: Highlighting the problems with systematic reviews and possible benefits of rapid reviews Discussing rapid review methods, including the Trip Rapid Review (TRR) system It was (from my perspective at least) interesting, with lots of discussion including significant challenge to my proposals – which I relish.  There were lots of points made … Continue reading Trip Rapid Review system; democratising?