Update from author: Trading certainty for speed

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

Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews

Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Kelly SE et al. Systematic Reviews 2016 5:79 This is an important issue in relation to rapid reviews and is connected with issues that are consistently raised in relation to rapid reviews, that of reproducibility and transparency.  The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct … Continue reading Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews

Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process

Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process. Peterson J et al. Journal of the American Association of Nurse Practitioners. 2016 Jun 1.   BACKGROUND/PURPOSE: Scoping review design represents a methodology that allows assessment of emerging evidence, as well as a first step in research development. Despite its increasing use, to date no article reflecting use of scoping review methodology has been submitted for review at JAANP. … Continue reading Understanding scoping reviews: Definition, purpose, and process

Article review: Using GRADE to respond to health questions with different levels of urgency

Using GRADE to respond to health questions with different levels of urgency. Thayer KA, Schünemann HJ. Environ Int. 2016 Apr 25. pii: S0160-4120(16)30107-6 GRADE is a method of assessing the certainty in evidence (also known as quality of evidence or confidence in effect estimates) and the strength of recommendations in health care.  In the paper the authors acknowledge that trustworthy answers are required across different … Continue reading Article review: Using GRADE to respond to health questions with different levels of urgency

Article review: AHRQ End-User Perspectives of Rapid Reviews

EPC Methods: AHRQ End-User Perspectives of Rapid Reviews In this study a number of Key Informants (KIs) were interviewed. In fact it was only eight – which already has me slightly concerned (and was recognised as a possible weakness in the article: “However, our small sample size means that results may not be representative of all end-users and we cannot be sure that the themes … Continue reading Article review: AHRQ End-User Perspectives of Rapid Reviews

Article review: An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods

An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. Tricco AC et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:61-7. This was actually published, ahead of schedule, in August last year, but the official citation is for 2016.  So far, the first paper on rapid reviews that I’ve found.  The objectives of the study are: “To solicit experiences with and perceptions of rapid reviews … Continue reading Article review: An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods

Article review: Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis

Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis: the example of lung cancer. Créquit P et al. BMC Medicine 2016 14:8 Should I admit to liking this article?  Enjoying it because it highlights the folly of relying on high-cost, not fit for purpose, systematic reviews. The background of the paper is: “Multiple treatments are frequently available for a given … Continue reading Article review: Wasted research when systematic reviews fail to provide a complete and up-to-date evidence synthesis

Article review: Rapid Evidence Reviews for Health Policy and Practice

Rapid Evidence Reviews for Health Policy and Practice. Academy Health 2015 This is a nice overview and it’s clear and well written.  The summary states: “Health policymakers in the United States and elsewhere are increasingly interested in making evidence-based policy decisions, but require assistance navigating the large volume of material in peer-reviewed and grey literature. This trend has led many organizations to identify methods for … Continue reading Article review: Rapid Evidence Reviews for Health Policy and Practice

Article review: The Empirical Evidence of Bias in Trials Measuring Treatment Differences

The Empirical Evidence of Bias in Trials Measuring Treatment Differences, AHRQ 2014. This paper sought to assess the effect of various biases on effect estimates in randomised controlled trials.  It also looks at the implications for systematic review producers.  This alone makes it pertinent for the site as assessment of bias is a time-consuming (and therefore costly) process.  Although we should note automated methods are … Continue reading Article review: The Empirical Evidence of Bias in Trials Measuring Treatment Differences

Article review: Designing Efficient Systematic Reviews Using Economical Allocation, Creation and Synthesis of Medical Evidence

Designing Efficient Systematic Reviews Using Economical Allocation, Creation and Synthesis of Medical Evidence. Scarpati M. RAND Corporation. 2014 At 140 pages this is a significant publication, produced as part of the Pardee RAND Graduate School dissertation series – so it’s Scarpati’s PhD thesis! The table of contents highlights the following chapters: Introduction Estimating the Value of Systematic Reviews: Osteoporosis Case Study Screening Times in Systematic Reviews … Continue reading Article review: Designing Efficient Systematic Reviews Using Economical Allocation, Creation and Synthesis of Medical Evidence