Unfortunately, this made me laugh

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

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

Rapid evidence summaries – NICE and Cochrane

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

Evidence synthesis – Vive la révolution

I posted a tweet on the 18th March “For those doubting the value of rapid reviews then the COVID-19 pandemic should make you reconsider.” I pointed out that the Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine (CEBM) in Oxford had produced the COVID-19 Evidence Service and is producing multiple rapid reviews (RRs). The tweet finished with “We simply do not have time to wait 6-24 months for guidance“**. … Continue reading Evidence synthesis – Vive la révolution

New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy

Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy. Korevaar DA et al. Res Synth Methods, 2020 The above is not really about RRs but it has implications, as much for the philosophical basis of evidence synthesis and the tension between ‘systematic’ and ‘rapid’ reviews. In this paper the authors report: “To prevent the potential bias from relying only on published … Continue reading New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy

New article: Lessons Learned From Conducting a Rapid Review: A Case Study Examining Factors Associated With Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Use

Lessons Learned From Conducting a Rapid Review: A Case Study Examining Factors Associated With Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Use. Kerrison RS et al. Research Methods Cases 2020 This is – unfortunately – behind a paywall but it looks really interesting: Abstract Rapid reviews enable researchers to obtain a snapshot of what is known about a topic in a quick and systematic way, and are increasingly becoming … Continue reading New article: Lessons Learned From Conducting a Rapid Review: A Case Study Examining Factors Associated With Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Use

New article: Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowdbased, randomized controlled trial

Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowdbased, randomized controlled trial. Gartlehner G et al. J Clin Epidemiol 2020 Jan 20   Conclusions: Single-reviewer abstract screening does not appear to fulfill the high methodological standards that decision makers expect from systematic reviews. It may be a viable option for rapid reviews, which deliberately lower methodological standards to provide decision makers with accelerated … Continue reading New article: Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowdbased, randomized controlled trial

Sampling and evidence synthesis: how much is enough?

At the heart of evidence synthesis is a fundamental question which seems unresolved and rarely articulated: Of the evidence produced in trials, for a given intervention, how much do you need to produce a fit-for-purpose evidence review? In my more naive years I assumed systematic reviews got all the evidence. Alas, that is clearly not the case. Therefore, if its not all the evidence it’s … Continue reading Sampling and evidence synthesis: how much is enough?

Screening studies for reviews: two papers

Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. Waffenschmidt S BMC Medical Research Methodology 2019;19:132 This concludes: “Single screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in … Continue reading Screening studies for reviews: two papers

Three new articles:

Article 1: Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study. Nussbaumer-Streit B et al. 2019 Nov 4. Conclusion: Exclusion of non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and could be a viable methodological shortcut, especially for rapid reviews. Comment: Nice to see (not) that the systematic review world appear to care little for … Continue reading Three new articles: