In my recent post I expressed frustration with the direction of travel of rapid reviews and one thing I highlighted was the lack of work on using regulatory data. This prompted two responses highlighting two separate papers: How to use FDA drug approval documents for evidence syntheses, BMJ 2018 Practical guidance for using multiple data sources in systematic reviews and meta‐analyses (with examples from the … Continue reading Using regulatory data
A while back I wrote a piece Different approaches to rapidity which suggested there are two ways of doing a rapid review: Process – take the systematic review and take short cuts Outcome – what’s the optimal way of getting to the desired outcome I’m increasingly concerned that all the focus is on the former and not the latter. My concern is based on a variety … Continue reading Where are we going with rapid reviews? #frustrating
The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias by Lars Jørgensen, Peter C Gøtzsche, Tom Jefferson (BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine 2018) This is a highly critical article pointing out that the review missed nearly half of eligible trials. They also land some heavy punches with comments such as: “Cochrane’s public relations of the review were uncritical“ “In our view, this is not … Continue reading The Cochrane HPV vaccine review was incomplete and ignored important evidence of bias
I posted a post-Evidence Live blog last week which explored the notion of harms associated with doing rapid reviews (RRs). There is overlap from that post but I’ve had time to reflect and hopefully this will be better written. I’ve also added a vote!! It may need re-writing again, if you think it needs clarification then please let me know! The question I was asked … Continue reading Value of Information to help with the SR v RR debate?
I was at the wonderful Evidence Live and presented on rapid reviews. One question came from the wonderful Iain Chalmers who asked about the potential for harm if health professionals followed the advice of a RR that was subsequently shown to be wrong. Later, in conversation, it became clear that ‘wrong’ meant a reversal of conclusion – so the SR might say the intervention is … Continue reading Systematic versus rapid reviews – what about harms?
Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study. Nussbaumer-Streit B. et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jun 1 A paper highlighting that abbreviated searches typically produce very similar results. The authors conclude: “If decision makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high … Continue reading Two new posts (well, new to the site)
I had the pleasure of presenting at the HTAi 2018 conference in Vancouver which ended yesterday. Here is a picture from the event, shared as (a) the unplanned colour co-ordination is impeccable and (b) people have commented I look like a game show host. I talked about, you guessed it, rapid reviews. My emphasis was on the fact that, whatever the review type, you never … Continue reading HTAi 2018
Straw man: A logic fallacy involving the purposeful misrepresentation of an argument in order to strike it down. I was sent a paper to review earlier this week and I was quite strong in my feedback, so I thought I should share my frustration and write a blog – so here it is… A central tenet of the paper was that rapid reviews (RR) can be … Continue reading Straw man and the accuracy of rapid reviews
Maureen Dobbins is the Scientific Director at the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools and last year gave a webinar on the ‘Rapid Review Guidebook’, here it is: Continue reading Spotlight on Methods and Tools: Rapid Review Guidebook
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