Three new articles:

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:

Another two ‘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 ‘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?

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?

Developing a fully automated evidence synthesis tool for identifying, assessing and collating the evidence

Abstract Evidence synthesis is a key element of evidence-based medicine. However, it is currently hampered by being labour intensive meaning that many trials are not incorporated into robust evidence syntheses and that many are out of date. To overcome this, a variety of techniques are being explored, including using automation technology. Here, we describe a fully automated evidence synthesis system for intervention studies, one that … Continue reading Developing a fully automated evidence synthesis tool for identifying, assessing and collating the evidence

Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol

Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation Diagnostic and Prognostic Research 2019 3:7. Arevalo-Rodriguez I et al The journal is not in PubMed so easily missed…:   Assessment of diagnostic tests, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of a patient’s health status, has increasingly … Continue reading Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol

The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews

The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews Turner RM, Bird SM, Higgins JP. PLoS One. 2013;8(3):e59202. An old paper but one someone pointed out recently and it’s one that mentions rapid reviews in a number of places, notably: “When at least two adequately powered studies are available in meta-analyses reported by Cochrane reviews, underpowered studies often contribute little … Continue reading The Impact of Study Size on Meta-analyses: Examination of Underpowered Studies in Cochrane Reviews

To HTA or Not to HTA: Identifying the Factors Influencing the Rapid Review Outcome in Ireland

Shame this is behind a paywall as it looks really interesting!   Objectives Reimbursement systems are evolving and endeavor to balance access and affordability. One such evolution in Ireland is the compulsory rapid review (RR) process, the outcome from which is a recommendation for a health technology assessment (HTA) or no HTA. For drugs that avoid an HTA, evaluation times are shorter, lengthy price negotiations … Continue reading To HTA or Not to HTA: Identifying the Factors Influencing the Rapid Review Outcome in Ireland

AHRQ dipping their toe in to the ‘rapid’ world

As part of updating the Trip Database I noticed the AHRQ have a new category ‘Rapid Evidence Product’ which currently has two entries: Patient Navigation Models for Lung Cancer (Dec 2018) Addressing Social Isolation To Improve the Health of Older Adults: A Rapid Review (Feb 2019) To whet your appetite this is how the method appears in the abstract of the latter review: Methods. We … Continue reading AHRQ dipping their toe in to the ‘rapid’ world

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?