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
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
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
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?
SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) Decision Tool project Authors: Eva Kaltenthaler, Katy Cooper, Marrissa Martyn St James, Abdullah Pandor, Ruth Wong ScHARR, University of Sheffield This is a project outline with the following aims: The aim of the proposed study is to validate the decision tool by achieving consensus using the Delphi method among those involved in rapid reviewing. This will ensure that the most important … Continue reading SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR) Decision Tool project
Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study. Nussbaumer-Streit B. et al. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Jun 1 A paper highlighting that abbreviated searches typically produce very similar results. The authors conclude: “If decision makers are willing to accept less certainty and a small risk for opposite conclusions, some abbreviated searches are viable options for rapid evidence syntheses. Decisions demanding high … Continue reading Two new posts (well, new to the site)
Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies. Stevens A et al. 2018 This is a protocol describing the development of reporting guidelines for rapid reviews (following similar work in systematic reviews. See the PRISMA website). The authors state: “The objective of this project is to create an evidence-based, consensus-derived minimum guidance for uthors writing reports of rapid reviews of primary studies.” The … Continue reading Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies
Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful? Moore G et al Health Research Policy and Systems 2018 16:17 Abstract Background Rapid reviews are increasingly used by policy agencies to access relevant research in short timeframes. Despite the growing number of programmes, little is known about how rapid reviews are used by health policy agencies. This study examined whether and how rapid reviews commissioned using a … Continue reading Do policy-makers find commissioned rapid reviews useful?
I came across two papers that have been submitted to a conference – but I’ve no idea which conference! The first author is the same – Katy Cooper: The first is Selecting Rapid Review Methods For Health Technology Assessment which concludes: “Rapid review methods need to be chosen to fit the needs of the review, each of which may have different challenges. Collaboration between those producing rapid … Continue reading Two oral conference submissions from Uni of Sheffield
Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews. Rathbone J et al. Systematic Reviews 2017 6:233 Background Citation screening for scoping searches and rapid review is time-consuming and inefficient, often requiring days or sometimes months to complete. We examined the reliability of PICo-based title-only screening using keyword searches based on the PICo elements—Participants, Interventions, and Comparators, but … Continue reading Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews