Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: High-quality systematic reviews are the gold standard of evidence synthesis, but can be time-prohibitive for healthcare decision-makers faced with shorter-term information needs. In an effort to better provide Drug Effectiveness Review Project (DERP) decision-makers with the right information at the right time, in 2012 the Pacific Northwest Evidence-based Practice Center (PNW EPC) started streamlining their standard systematic review processes, reducing timelines for new reviews by four months and by three months for updates. The PNW EPC also created two new abbreviated products, single drug reviews and reviews of reviews.
Objective: Describe the DERP streamlining process and its impact on quality of reports produced between July 2012 and October 2015.
Methods: For each streamlined DERP report, two authors completed a questionnaire that assessed: 1) types of scope and methodological modifications; 2) impact on report quality indicators and conclusions; 3) workload manageability; and 4) suggestions for improvement. We used a mixture of question formats, including yes/no, multiple choice, Likert scale ratings and open-ended responses. We will use descriptive statistics and narrative methods to summarize author responses.
Results: We assessed six new and four updated DERP reports. Streamlining included scope restrictions, abbreviated data abstraction, less dual review of evidence strength ratings, and less meta-analysis. For report quality, authors indicated no change to key finding clarity, organization, applicability, or risk of bias, but reported slightly worse limitations and workload manageability. Due to removal of indirect and noncomparative data, streamlined updates resulted in more evidence gaps. Our findings are potentially limited by recall bias due to retrospective data collection, and by being specific to drug-drug comparisons.
Conclusions: In order to provide health care decision-makers with more timely evidence, it is possible to streamline the standard systematic review process with limited impact on author-assessed report quality. Further assessment of report quality is needed from external reviewers and users.
Objective: Describe the DERP streamlining process and its impact on quality of reports produced between July 2012 and October 2015.
Methods: For each streamlined DERP report, two authors completed a questionnaire that assessed: 1) types of scope and methodological modifications; 2) impact on report quality indicators and conclusions; 3) workload manageability; and 4) suggestions for improvement. We used a mixture of question formats, including yes/no, multiple choice, Likert scale ratings and open-ended responses. We will use descriptive statistics and narrative methods to summarize author responses.
Results: We assessed six new and four updated DERP reports. Streamlining included scope restrictions, abbreviated data abstraction, less dual review of evidence strength ratings, and less meta-analysis. For report quality, authors indicated no change to key finding clarity, organization, applicability, or risk of bias, but reported slightly worse limitations and workload manageability. Due to removal of indirect and noncomparative data, streamlined updates resulted in more evidence gaps. Our findings are potentially limited by recall bias due to retrospective data collection, and by being specific to drug-drug comparisons.
Conclusions: In order to provide health care decision-makers with more timely evidence, it is possible to streamline the standard systematic review process with limited impact on author-assessed report quality. Further assessment of report quality is needed from external reviewers and users.