One of the main criticisms of ‘rapid reviews’ is that they cuts corner (relative to systematic reviews) and therefore it makes the likely to be – in some way – ‘wrong’ (however that is defined).  This negativity is often taken from the perspective that a full systematic review is – in some way – ‘right’ (again, however that is defined). What is increasingly clear to me … Continue reading Sampling in evidence synthesis

Evidence Live has come and gone and I had a wonderful chat with Iain Chalmers.  Iain is a marvel and in the course of the conversation I had a ‘light bulb’ moment relating to the nature of rapid versus systematic reviews.  I’m increasingly unhappy with the distinction and I am of the view that the debate should not be ‘rapid’ versus ‘systematic’ but how, for a given context, can … Continue reading The nature of evidence synthesis

I was recently asked to write a blog article for the BMJ’s Clinical Evidence Blog, so I did… “Perfect is the enemy of good” Voltaire Rapid reviews are becoming increasingly commissioned, used and written about. But why is there this, relatively sudden, interest? Putting it bluntly, it’s because the cornerstone of evidence synthesis, the systematic review, is becoming increasingly out of touch with the needs … Continue reading BMJ Clinical Evidence Blog: The Rise of Rapid Reviews

I have been reflecting that many of the approaches towards rapid reviews start with the notion of a systematic review and approach rapidity by removing bits. For example they may search fewer databases or perhaps only have one person assessing for bias.  But the principle is that the person undertaking the review (and those commissioning it) believe that the approach will not affect the result … Continue reading Different approaches to rapidity

Voting is over in the second poll asking ‘Why do we do systematic reviews?’  I re-ran the poll as I felt the questions could have been better worded from the first one!  So, the results: To see what has been done before, to see if new research is needed and/or to learn from previous research – 29.31% (27.35%) To quantify, quite tightly, how good an intervention is … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews? The final poll

In an earlier post I highlighted the editorial ‘All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more’.  In the editorial the authors raised the issue of systematic reviews being a family and rapid, systematic, scoping were all part of the ‘evidence synthesis’ family. I contacted the authors with a couple of questions/observations: They highlighted that systematic reviews used systematic methods which could be … Continue reading All in the Family, a follow-up

At the start of the ‘Why do we do systematic reviews?’ series I started with a poll embedded in the first article. It acted as a springboard for the subsequent articles.  Over the course of writing the series I felt that the questions would have benefitted from greater clarity.  So, I want to re-run the survey, with clearer questions, and throw it open to a … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews, part 1 version 2

“Perfect is the enemy of good” Voltaire Bottom line: Only consider a large-scale, resource intensive, systematic review if you believe it can add value over and above a rapid method. I would describe my discovery of Value of Information (VoI or VOI) as a personal eureka moment!  It gave me a theoretical framework to help explain my increasing certainty that things need to dramatically change in the world of … Continue reading Value of Information

This is the sixth article in the series exploring the reasons for undertaking a systematic review [1-5]. With 28.5% of the votes, this was the most popular reason for undertaking a systematic review: ‘To see what has been done before, to see if new research is needed‘. In hindsight the ‘see if new research is needed‘ is too narrow, it should also be to learn from … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 6

For the previous four articles in this series links can be found in the reference section below [1-4]. The series is about exploring the reasons for undertaking a systematic review, with four main reasons seeming popular.  The second most popular reason, with 24% of the votes at the time of writing, is ‘To know if an intervention has any ‘worth’.  Looking back I regret the … Continue reading Why do we do systematic reviews? Part 5