Developing a taxonomy for rapid review products and their methodological approaches

Poster
2015 Vienna
Hartling L1, Guise J2, Kato E3, Anderson J2, Belinson S4, Berliner E3, Dryden D5, Featherstone R6, Mitchell MD7, Motu’apuaka M2, Noorani H4, Paynter R2, Robinson KA8, Schoelles K7, Umscheid CA7, Whitlock E9, Gozu A3, Lee K3, Gartlehner G10, Hempel S11, Wilt T12
1Child Health Field, Canada
2Scientific Resource Center for the AHRQ Effective Health Care Program, Portland VA Research Foundation, Portland VA Medical Center, USA
3Center for Outcomes and Evidence, Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality, USA
4Office of Clinical Affairs, Blue Cross Blue Shield Association, USA
5Department of Pediatrics, University of Alberta, Canada
6Alberta Research Center for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Canada
7ECRI Institute – Penn Medicine AHRQ EPC and the Center for Evidence-based Practice and the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, USA
8Department of Medicine, Johns Hopkins University, USA
9Kaiser Permanente Research Affiliates, USA
10RTI-UNC Evidence-Based Practice Center, USA
11Southern California Evidence-Based Practice Center (RAND), USA
12Minnesota Evidence-Based Practice Center, USA

Background:

Interest in reliable and quick evidence syntheses to support decision making in health care has sparked development of rapid reviews, yet no taxonomy of these products exists and there is limited guidance for producers.

Objectives:

To understand and describe practices of conducting rapid reviews.

Methods:

Perform literature search and interviews with producers of rapid reviews to catalog and synthesize methods used, existing empiric evidence, and guidance, and to establish a taxonomy for rapid products. In addition, we are currently interviewing end-users of evidence syntheses to discover how rapid reviews are perceived in comparison with standard systematic reviews, and compiling emerging themes.

Results:

We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations in five countries (production time five minutes to eight months). Almost all products used four approaches to save time: narrowed scope, restricted searching, screening and data abstraction by a single reviewer, and limited synthesis. Faster products generally employed more restrictions. Rapid products fell into four categories: Rapid Reviews, Rapid Responses, Evidence Inventories, and Automated Processes. Methods varied by category, with some products (Inventories) avoiding synthesis completely and others (Rapid Reviews) including syntheses comparable to standard systematic reviews. Rapid products are produced in close consultation with the end-user to support specific decisions. This allows the selection of methods that best fit the decision and timeframe. Little empiric evidence has compared rapid and systematic reviews.

Conclusions:

Rapid reviews have tremendous methodological variation, but categorization based on timeframe or type of synthesis reveals patterns. Reviewers work with end-users to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs. Our finding of the important role and interaction with end-users to develop a fit-for-purpose product has led to follow-up work. Interviews with end-users will provide insight into why systematic reviews are trusted and valued, and the acceptability and usability of rapid products.