Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Conducting full systematic reviews or health technology assessments (HTA) is time-consuming and costly. The urgency of some questions in health care means that information is needed in a timely manner. Rapid reviews are a kind of systematic review that is conducted within a shorter timeframe. They are characterized by methodological restrictions, which can occur at different stages of the review process.
Objectives: Our aim was to assess methodological quality of rapid reviews compared to systematic reviews using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist and to assess feasibility of its use for rapid reviews. Furthermore, we investigated the time actually needed for a shortened review process.
Methods: A systematic literature search for rapid reviews about surgical interventions was conducted in the databases Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and HTA databases. We analyzed publications using AMSTAR and compared the results with those of a review of reviews on the same topic in which AMSTAR was used to assess quality as well [1]. The duration of each of the rapid review processes was estimated by calculating the time between the last search date and publication date.
Results: We identified 17 rapid reviews according to the a priori defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Items fulfilled more frequently in rapid reviews were: search for grey literature (65% vs 33%), listing of excluded studies (59% vs 37%), and provision of study characteristics (77% vs 44%) whereas consideration of study quality in formulating conclusions, conduct of meta-analysis, and statement of conflicts of interest were less frequent. Median time between search and publication was eight months, range 1-27.
Conclusions: Apart from differences regarding individual items, mean quality of rapid and systematic reviews was comparable. Thus, use of AMSTAR for rapid reviews is feasible and makes sense with some adjustments. Strikingly, only 14.3% of rapid reviews were published within three months.
[1] Martel G, et al. The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Syst Rev 2012; 1:14.
Objectives: Our aim was to assess methodological quality of rapid reviews compared to systematic reviews using the AMSTAR (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews) checklist and to assess feasibility of its use for rapid reviews. Furthermore, we investigated the time actually needed for a shortened review process.
Methods: A systematic literature search for rapid reviews about surgical interventions was conducted in the databases Medline, Embase, the Cochrane Library and HTA databases. We analyzed publications using AMSTAR and compared the results with those of a review of reviews on the same topic in which AMSTAR was used to assess quality as well [1]. The duration of each of the rapid review processes was estimated by calculating the time between the last search date and publication date.
Results: We identified 17 rapid reviews according to the a priori defined inclusion and exclusion criteria. Items fulfilled more frequently in rapid reviews were: search for grey literature (65% vs 33%), listing of excluded studies (59% vs 37%), and provision of study characteristics (77% vs 44%) whereas consideration of study quality in formulating conclusions, conduct of meta-analysis, and statement of conflicts of interest were less frequent. Median time between search and publication was eight months, range 1-27.
Conclusions: Apart from differences regarding individual items, mean quality of rapid and systematic reviews was comparable. Thus, use of AMSTAR for rapid reviews is feasible and makes sense with some adjustments. Strikingly, only 14.3% of rapid reviews were published within three months.
[1] Martel G, et al. The quality of research synthesis in surgery: the case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Syst Rev 2012; 1:14.