I was at Evidence Live last week to discuss the Community Rapid Review idea. It was good to see a number of sessions on rapid reviews and in one of those (where I was in the audience) a question was asked relating to comparisons between ‘rapid’ and ‘systematic’ reviews. I suggested that, for Evidence Live 2018, there should be a RR ‘hack’! At the start … Continue reading Evidence Live 2018: Rapid review hackathon
I’m just back from Evidence Live where I ran a workshop on the community rapid review idea. I spoke to many people about rapid reviews, and it’s interesting how the tide was turning (by the rise in interest in RRs). During one discussion the absurdity struck me. Systematic reviews Fantasy = you include all trials Reality = as 50% of trials (on average) are unpublished … Continue reading Does this even make sense?
The Community Rapid Review idea has been discussed for a while now and the final stage, before we move to production, is coming very soon. Next week I will be running a workshop at Evidence Live on the idea. It’ll be an interactive exploration of the thinking behind the idea and will hopefully see some final constructive criticism to guide the final product. If you’re … Continue reading Evidence Live: Community Rapid Review
Paul Glasziou and Iain Chalmers recently published the above article on the BMJ Blog. As you’d expect with these authors it’s a great read. I’d like to highlight one section – that’s particularly relevant to the issue of rapid reviews (Note my emphasis): Whether the precise non-publication rate is 30%, 40%, or 50%, it is still a serious waste of the roughly $180 billion annually … Continue reading Can it really be true that 50% of research is unpublished?
Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology Vasser M et al. Health Info Libr J, 34: 156–164. Unfortunately, it’s behind a paywall, so here’s the abstract: Background Failure to perform a comprehensive search when designing a systematic review (SR) can lead to bias, reducing the validity of review’s conclusions. Objective We examined the frequency and choice of databases used by reviewers in … Continue reading Database selection in systematic reviews: an insight through clinical neurology
One category on the Trip Database is ‘ongoing systematic reviews’. This content is taken from the PROSPERO database of ongoing systematic reviews. If you’re not familiar with PROSPERO this is how the site describes itself: “PROSPERO is an international database of prospectively registered systematic reviews in health and social care, welfare, public health, education, crime, justice, and international development, where there is a health related … Continue reading Registering rapid reviews
I spotted an interesting tweet earlier and replied, the exchange is below: The paper in question is: Responsible Translation of Stem Cell Research: An Assessment of Clinical Trial Registration and Publications. For fear of being repetitive reporting bias is hugely problematic. Avoiding unpublished trials can massively affect a systematic review [1, 2]. Yet Cochrane, arguably the ‘gold standard’ for systematic review production, has an unsystematic … Continue reading Unpublished studies in stem cells
Grey literature in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study of the contribution of non-English reports, unpublished studies and dissertations to the results of meta-analyses in child-relevant reviews. Hartling L et al. BMC Medical Research Methodology 2017 17:64 Conclusion: The majority of SRs searched for non-English and unpublished studies; however, these represented a small proportion of included studies and rarely impacted the results and conclusions of the review. … Continue reading Grey literature in systematic reviews
RAPADAPTE for rapid guideline development: high-quality clinical guidelines can be rapidly developed with limited resources. Alper BS et al. Int J Qual Health Care. 2016 A Rapid Evidence Assessment of the effectiveness of prison education in reducing recidivism and increasing employment. Ellison K et al. Probation Journal, March 2017 Always great to see rapid methods from areas outside of health Using Mobile Phone Technology to … Continue reading A varied collection of papers on rapid reviews
Text Analysis Tools and Rapid Reviews: Practical Guidance for Advanced Information Retrieval. This is part of the HTAi – Information Retrieval – Preliminary programme for the Pre-Conference Workshop in Rome, Italy, Sunday June 18 2017 Text analysis tools, speakers: Julie Glanville, Associate Director, YHEC (York Health Economics Consortium), University of York, UK Carol Lefebvre, Independent Information Consultant, Lefebvre Associates Ltd, Oxford, UK and Co-Convenor, Cochrane Information … Continue reading Workshop on rapid reviews