What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies
© 2023 Pan American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO); licensed by Research Synthesis Methods. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd..
Rapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision-maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full-text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies.
| Medienart: |
E-Artikel |
|---|
| Erscheinungsjahr: |
2024 |
|---|---|
| Erschienen: |
2024 |
| Enthalten in: |
Zur Gesamtaufnahme - volume:15 |
|---|---|
| Enthalten in: |
Research synthesis methods - 15(2024), 1 vom: 18. Jan., Seite 2-20 |
| Sprache: |
Englisch |
|---|
| Beteiligte Personen: |
Haby, Michelle M [VerfasserIn] |
|---|
| Links: |
|---|
| Themen: |
Evidence synthesis |
|---|
| Anmerkungen: |
Date Completed 03.01.2024 Date Revised 20.03.2024 published: Print-Electronic Citation Status MEDLINE |
|---|
| doi: |
10.1002/jrsm.1664 |
|---|
| funding: |
|
|---|---|
| Förderinstitution / Projekttitel: |
|
| PPN (Katalog-ID): |
NLM361940726 |
|---|
| LEADER | 01000caa a22002652 4500 | ||
|---|---|---|---|
| 001 | NLM361940726 | ||
| 003 | DE-627 | ||
| 005 | 20240320233427.0 | ||
| 007 | cr uuu---uuuuu | ||
| 008 | 231226s2024 xx |||||o 00| ||eng c | ||
| 024 | 7 | |a 10.1002/jrsm.1664 |2 doi | |
| 028 | 5 | 2 | |a pubmed24n1337.xml |
| 035 | |a (DE-627)NLM361940726 | ||
| 035 | |a (NLM)37696668 | ||
| 040 | |a DE-627 |b ger |c DE-627 |e rakwb | ||
| 041 | |a eng | ||
| 100 | 1 | |a Haby, Michelle M |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 245 | 1 | 0 | |a What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies |
| 264 | 1 | |c 2024 | |
| 336 | |a Text |b txt |2 rdacontent | ||
| 337 | |a ƒaComputermedien |b c |2 rdamedia | ||
| 338 | |a ƒa Online-Ressource |b cr |2 rdacarrier | ||
| 500 | |a Date Completed 03.01.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a Date Revised 20.03.2024 | ||
| 500 | |a published: Print-Electronic | ||
| 500 | |a Citation Status MEDLINE | ||
| 520 | |a © 2023 Pan American Health Organization (PAHO/WHO); licensed by Research Synthesis Methods. Research Synthesis Methods published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd. | ||
| 520 | |a Rapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision-maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full-text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies | ||
| 650 | 4 | |a Journal Article | |
| 650 | 4 | |a Systematic Review | |
| 650 | 4 | |a evidence synthesis | |
| 650 | 4 | |a rapid review methods | |
| 650 | 4 | |a recommendations | |
| 650 | 4 | |a risk of bias | |
| 650 | 4 | |a systematic review | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Barreto, Jorge Otávio Maia |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Kim, Jenny Yeon Hee |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Peiris, Sasha |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Mansilla, Cristián |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Torres, Marcela |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Guerrero-Magaña, Diego Emmanuel |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 700 | 1 | |a Reveiz, Ludovic |e verfasserin |4 aut | |
| 773 | 0 | 8 | |i Enthalten in |t Research synthesis methods |d 2010 |g 15(2024), 1 vom: 18. Jan., Seite 2-20 |w (DE-627)NLM228597374 |x 1759-2887 |7 nnns |
| 773 | 1 | 8 | |g volume:15 |g year:2024 |g number:1 |g day:18 |g month:01 |g pages:2-20 |
| 856 | 4 | 0 | |u http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1664 |3 Volltext |
| 912 | |a GBV_USEFLAG_A | ||
| 912 | |a GBV_NLM | ||
| 951 | |a AR | ||
| 952 | |d 15 |j 2024 |e 1 |b 18 |c 01 |h 2-20 | ||