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
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 when might you need to do a full systematic review, using all the data (including unpublished data including CSRs as seen with the Tamiflu work of Tom Jefferson)?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
Last week I presented at the JBI European Symposium in Cardiff, one part of the discussion related to rapid reviews. Following that a Twitter conversation started: There were other messages in the exchanges but you get the picture! A few observations: I’m still unsure if James believes we need all the data or not when doing an evidence synthesis. Assuming we don’t need all the … Continue reading An interesting exchange on Twitter
I spotted this news via the BMJ and I wanted to share as these (CSRs) are an important component of the debate around rapid versus systematic reviews. I have long argued that terms such as ‘rapid’ and ‘systematic’ are mis-leading and the CSR helps illustrate this point. Rapid – is a relative term and open to interpretation. I would see rapid as taking a day … Continue reading FDA to begin releasing clinical study reports in pilot programme
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