A long standing question is to what extent restricting the language choice to English makes much difference. In this post we highlight four articles that tackle this issue. Three of the four found it made minimal difference while the fourth (by far the oldest) suggested it may cause a bias. There is now another paper to be added to the discussion: Restricting evidence syntheses of … Continue reading Language restricting and RRs
The crisis of Covid-19 has seen an explosion of rapid reviews. Has the pandemic seen the final acceptance of rapid reviews? This blog was started at the end of 2015 and in the space of five years has seen a dramatic change in fortune/position of rapid reviews. Many of the most critical voices are now actively embracing them. This is broadly great, but the slight … Continue reading Rapid reviews and Covid-19
Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy.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the potential bias from relying only on published … Continue reading New Article: Searching practices and inclusion of unpublished studies in systematic reviews of diagnostic accuracy
Lessons Learned From Conducting a Rapid Review: A Case Study Examining Factors Associated With Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Use. Kerrison RS et al. Research Methods Cases 2020 This is – unfortunately – behind a paywall but it looks really interesting: Abstract Rapid reviews enable researchers to obtain a snapshot of what is known about a topic in a quick and systematic way, and are increasingly becoming … Continue reading New article: Lessons Learned From Conducting a Rapid Review: A Case Study Examining Factors Associated With Flexible Sigmoidoscopy Screening Use
Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowdbased, randomized controlled trial. Gartlehner G et al. J Clin Epidemiol 2020 Jan 20 Conclusions: Single-reviewer abstract screening does not appear to fulfill the high methodological standards that decision makers expect from systematic reviews. It may be a viable option for rapid reviews, which deliberately lower methodological standards to provide decision makers with accelerated … Continue reading New article: Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowdbased, randomized controlled trial
Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. Waffenschmidt S BMC Medical Research Methodology 2019;19:132 This concludes: “Single screening of the titles and abstracts of studies retrieved in bibliographic searches is not equivalent to double screening, as substantially more studies are missed. However, in our opinion such an approach could still represent an appropriate methodological shortcut in … Continue reading Screening studies for reviews: two papers
Article 1: Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study. Nussbaumer-Streit B et al. 2019 Nov 4. Conclusion: Exclusion of non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and could be a viable methodological shortcut, especially for rapid reviews. Comment: Nice to see (not) that the systematic review world appear to care little for … Continue reading Three new articles:
Following on from my post a few days ago (Three ‘new’ articles) I post another couple: The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports. Spry C et al. Res Synth Methods. 2018 Dec;9(4):521-526. Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review. Arevalo-Rodriguez I … Continue reading Another two ‘new’ articles
Three articles, which I’d previously not added to the blog (hence, not really new): Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage. Langlois E et al. BMJ Glob Health. 2019 Feb 5;4(1):e001178 Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR). Pandor A et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 Oct;114:22-29 A … Continue reading Three ‘new’ articles
Does a rapid review version of a large epidemiological systematic review fail to identify many eligible studies, and what implications does this have for the results of the review? Barnish M. Oral Presentation, Society for Social Medicine and Population Health and International Epidemiology Association European Congress Annual Scientific Meeting 2019 Really interesting oral presentation (abstract below). Lots of really interesting data: “114 studies were eligible for … Continue reading Does a rapid review version of a large epidemiological systematic review fail to identify many eligible studies, and what implications does this have for the results of the review?
Rapid-Reviews.info 