Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Through comparison of systematic reviews and rapid reviews for surgical interventions using AMSTAR, an instrument for quality assessment, we identified ambiguity concerning the term ‘rapid’ as well as a need for standardisation of methods for rapid reviews. Due to the urgency of some questions in health care, an acceleration of the review process is a high priority, and therefore, standardisation will be very helpful. There are many possibilities for methodological restrictions, but weak empirical evidence regarding the consequences such as increased potential of bias.
Objectives: Our aims are to develop and discuss a standardised rapid review methodology, to conduct a rapid review based on that methodology and a systematic review at the same time and concerning an identical research question, and to compare and discuss the results further.
Methods: The research project will be divided into three parts: A) Comprehensive systematic literature searches and handsearches for existing standards for rapid reviews will be conducted on websites of Health Technology Assessment agencies, and governmental and non-governmental organisations. Based on a synopsis of the results, we will interview methodology experts and organise focus groups for discussion. The results will lead to the development of a standardised format for rapid reviews that will be revised by experts. B) The developed format will be tested by conducting a rapid review and a systematic review at the same time on an identical question. C) The results, assessments of included evidence, conclusions, and recommendations of both reviews will be compared and discussed in focus groups consisting of decision makers in health care.
Conclusions: Comparing the results of a rapid review conducted according to a newly developed methodology with a systematic review on the same topic and in parallel design will lead to conclusions about possible methodological restrictions, their potential of bias and the time, as well as resources, saved by accelerating the review process. A standardised methodology for rapid reviews will help policy-makers with time pressures to decide swiftly with greater certainty.
Objectives: Our aims are to develop and discuss a standardised rapid review methodology, to conduct a rapid review based on that methodology and a systematic review at the same time and concerning an identical research question, and to compare and discuss the results further.
Methods: The research project will be divided into three parts: A) Comprehensive systematic literature searches and handsearches for existing standards for rapid reviews will be conducted on websites of Health Technology Assessment agencies, and governmental and non-governmental organisations. Based on a synopsis of the results, we will interview methodology experts and organise focus groups for discussion. The results will lead to the development of a standardised format for rapid reviews that will be revised by experts. B) The developed format will be tested by conducting a rapid review and a systematic review at the same time on an identical question. C) The results, assessments of included evidence, conclusions, and recommendations of both reviews will be compared and discussed in focus groups consisting of decision makers in health care.
Conclusions: Comparing the results of a rapid review conducted according to a newly developed methodology with a systematic review on the same topic and in parallel design will lead to conclusions about possible methodological restrictions, their potential of bias and the time, as well as resources, saved by accelerating the review process. A standardised methodology for rapid reviews will help policy-makers with time pressures to decide swiftly with greater certainty.