New article: Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study Ewald H et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology Conclusion: Abbreviated literature searches often led to identical or very similar effect estimates as comprehensive searches with slightly increased confidence intervals. Relevant deviations may occur. Apart from the conclusion, some key observations: “Searching multiple data sources may increase the number of studies, … Continue reading New article: Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: meta-epidemiological study

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

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?

Rapid review articles, so far, in 2019

I’ve been trying to keep on top of articles relating to rapid review methods and the long list can be found here. After significant growth in papers over the last 8-10 years there was, last year, a drop-off in methods papers (that I could find). This year has been marginally better, but still not loads. Here are the ones for this year:   To HTA … Continue reading Rapid review articles, so far, in 2019

Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations

Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations J Clin Epidemiol. Wang L et al.   Great to see this abstract!  Without the abstract I’m not sure how rapid ‘rapid’ actually is. Also, it’s unclear how close the results were, aside from the very nice ‘tease’ of: “Compared to an NMA including all unique trials, we … Continue reading Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations

An interesting exchange on Twitter – reflections

Last week I posted An interesting exchange on Twitter. In that I ended with this: When might: the largest trial suffice? when might a rapid review suffice? when might a systematic review suffice? when might you need to do a full systematic review, using all the data (including unpublished data including CSRs as seen with the Tamiflu work of Tom Jefferson)? This triggered further exchanges … Continue reading An interesting exchange on Twitter – reflections