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…?
Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews. Rathbone J et al. Systematic Reviews 2017 6:233 Background Citation screening for scoping searches and rapid review is time-consuming and inefficient, often requiring days or sometimes months to complete. We examined the reliability of PICo-based title-only screening using keyword searches based on the PICo elements—Participants, Interventions, and Comparators, but … Continue reading Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews
Testing the effectiveness of simplified search strategies for updating systematic reviews. Rice M et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2017 Aug;88:148-153 Premise: To test the overall effectiveness of a simplified search strategy (SSS) for updating 9 systematic reviews. Conclusion: SSS performed well for clinically focused topics and, with a median sensitivity of 100%, could be a viable alternative to a conventional comprehensive search strategy for updating this … Continue reading New post: Testing the effectiveness of simplified search strategies for updating systematic reviews
Two new papers of interest: Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. Hartling L et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017 17:64 Conclusions: The majority of SRs searched for non-English and unpublished studies; however, these represented a small proportion of included studies and rarely impacted the results … Continue reading A couple of new papers
As far as I can tell we undertake evidence synthesis to better understand the effectiveness of an intervention. The rationale is that the greater the accumulation of evidence the greater the understanding of how good an intervention is. This is typically characterised by a reduction in the size of the confidence intervals in meta-analyses. Put it another way, we attempt to be as certain as … Continue reading Theorising about evidence synthesis – is it about the cost, language or other?
This work has been supported via the KConnect project (a Horizon 2020 EU-funded project) and on Wednesday we had to present the work of the whole consortium at the EU in Luxembourg. The response was overwhelmingly positive and so I wish to share a bit more of the work. A slight bit of context; I have been involved in a number of automation projects and … Continue reading From the Trip blog: Automated reviews – very positive progress