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 when might you need to do a full systematic review, using all the data (including unpublished data including CSRs as seen with the Tamiflu work of Tom Jefferson)?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

An interesting exchange on Twitter

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

FDA to begin releasing clinical study reports in pilot programme

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

To what extent does adding poor quality ingredients to the review ‘bake’ means we get a bad cake?

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?

Trip Rapid Review system; democratising?

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?

Where’s the evidence?

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?

Methods Q: Rapid versus systematic reviews – assessing which generates most benefit/least harm

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