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of interest: Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews.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 BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017 17:64 Conclusions: The majority of SRs searched for non-English and unpublished studies; however, these represented a small proportion of included studies and rarely impacted the results … Continue reading A couple of new papers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
Copy of the email I’ve just received from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools: Rapid Review Guidebook As public health organizations across Canada adopt and implement evidence-informed approaches to public health decision-making, there is a need for up to date evidence that can be applied to local contexts. An effective way to synthesize current evidence on a topic is to conduct a rapid review … Continue reading Rapid Review Guidebook from NCCMT
In the recent post relating to trading certainty for speed I highlighted that the authors stated: “Participants of our survey, on average, viewed 10% as the maximum tolerable risk of getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review” My issue with this is that there was no definition of what ‘incorrect’ was. So, I emailed one of the authors: “A fascinating paper, thank you. One … Continue reading Update from author: Trading certainty for speed
In case you didn’t know, Cochrane has a Rapid Reviews Methods Group. They have just released their second newsletter, the content of which is below. To read the full newsletter, click here. Cochrane RRMG at the Global Evidence Summit Cochrane RRMG hosts workshop in Cape Town A panoramic view of rapid reviews Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems Rapid needs appraisal to inform outbreak … Continue reading Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group Newsletter
Trading certainty for speed – how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews. Wagner G et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017 17:121 Abstract below and comment (from me) under that: Background Decisionmakers and guideline developers demand rapid syntheses of the evidence when time sensitive evidence-informed decisions are required. A potential trade-off of such rapid reviews is that … Continue reading Trading certainty for speed – how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews
The following was posted on the Trip Database blog….: As part of the KConnect work (EU funded Horizon 2020 project) we have been doing a fair bit of work exploring the automatic extraction of various elements from RCTs and systematic reviews. If we can automatically understand what a paper is about it can open up all sorts of avenues with regard search and evidence synthesis. … Continue reading Can you do evidence synthesis automatically?
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). … Continue reading Comparison of a full systematic review versus a rapid review approaches to assess a newborn screening test for tyrosinemia type 1
Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study. Moore G et al. Systematic Reviews 2017 6:23 Conclusions: This study found that knowledge brokering increased the perceived clarity of information provided in Evidence Check rapid review proposals and the confidence of reviewers that they could meet policy makers’ needs. Further research is needed to identify how the knowledge brokering process … Continue reading Two new articles on rapid reviews