Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Dec 24. Marshall I, Marshall R, Wallace B, Brassey J, Thomas J. I was delighted to be part of this study (which is open access, so full-text is here) which simulated the effects of various rapid review ‘shortcuts’ and the implications for the effect size estimates relative to the full systematic … Continue reading To what extent does adding poor quality ingredients to the review ‘bake’ means we get a bad cake?
As mentioned previously we will start the build of our community rapid review system in early 2019. We’ve talked about it for so long now it seems like we just need to get on with it and hope we produce a system that people want to use. We’re not sure of the likely delivery date, but it should take 4-6 months to build and test. … Continue reading A brief update
I gave a session on rapid reviews at ScHARR yesterday. It was in two parts: Highlighting the problems with systematic reviews and possible benefits of rapid reviews Discussing rapid review methods, including the Trip Rapid Review (TRR) system It was (from my perspective at least) interesting, with lots of discussion including significant challenge to my proposals – which I relish. There were lots of points made … Continue reading Trip Rapid Review system; democratising?
In my quest for understanding I keep coming back to some fundamental questions relating to evidence synthesis and I’m often left wondering about the evidence underpinning what appears to be assumptions. So, the first question I’m requesting evidence for is: What is the evidence that systematic reviews give an accurate assessment of the effectiveness of an intervention? There, simple. We’re always extolling people … Continue reading Where’s the evidence?
I asked the following question to the EBHC mail-list: “I’m wondering how one could test the following so would welcome advice. Question: Assuming we have a finite resource for evidence synthesis which is better 1 systematic review or, say, 5-10 rapid reviews? Context: There is an opportunity cost associated with doing the labour intensive systematic reviews how do we know we are using this … Continue reading Methods Q: Rapid versus systematic reviews – assessing which generates most benefit/least harm
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?