Article type
Abstract
Background: Rapid reviews have become a pragmatic alternative to traditional systematic reviews by streamlining methodological processes such as literature searches, aiming for faster provision of decision-relevant information. The agreement of effect estimates obtained from abbreviated literature searches as conducted in rapid reviews and those obtained from extensive searches as performed in Cochrane or Campbell reviews is unknown.
Objectives: To assess differences between treatment effects estimated from abbreviated and extensive literature searches.
Methods: We selected 44 Cochrane reviews published between 2012 and 2016 on diverse topics that had a binary outcome in the main summary of findings table (a subset of randomly selected reviews used for a related project [1]). We constructed 14 variants of abbreviated searches based on the original CSRs search strategy by combining searches in MEDLINE, Embase, or CENTRAL with or without searching of reference lists. From the first binary outcome’s meta-analysis of each CSR, we extracted trial results, recorded for each trial which abbreviated search variant identified it, and calculated a summary treatment effect estimate per search variant (summary odds ratio, sOR) including only trials identified by that variant using random-effects meta-analyses. We then determined how often sORs of abbreviated and original searches differed in the direction, in the inclusion of the null (i.e. nominal statistical significance), and beyond chance (i.e. the ratio of sORs excluded the null). We follow an epidemiological approach to evaluate the overall relationship of treatment effect sizes derived by abbreviated and original searches in an overarching meta-analysis across all 44 ratio of sORs.
Results: Analyses are ongoing and results will be available at time of the Summit.
Conclusions: Our results will systematically quantify the impact of faster and abbreviated searching on treatment effect estimates across a wide range of CSR topics.
[1] Nussbaumer-Streit et al. Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches for rapid reviews: protocol of a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic study. Sys rev. 2016;5:197
Objectives: To assess differences between treatment effects estimated from abbreviated and extensive literature searches.
Methods: We selected 44 Cochrane reviews published between 2012 and 2016 on diverse topics that had a binary outcome in the main summary of findings table (a subset of randomly selected reviews used for a related project [1]). We constructed 14 variants of abbreviated searches based on the original CSRs search strategy by combining searches in MEDLINE, Embase, or CENTRAL with or without searching of reference lists. From the first binary outcome’s meta-analysis of each CSR, we extracted trial results, recorded for each trial which abbreviated search variant identified it, and calculated a summary treatment effect estimate per search variant (summary odds ratio, sOR) including only trials identified by that variant using random-effects meta-analyses. We then determined how often sORs of abbreviated and original searches differed in the direction, in the inclusion of the null (i.e. nominal statistical significance), and beyond chance (i.e. the ratio of sORs excluded the null). We follow an epidemiological approach to evaluate the overall relationship of treatment effect sizes derived by abbreviated and original searches in an overarching meta-analysis across all 44 ratio of sORs.
Results: Analyses are ongoing and results will be available at time of the Summit.
Conclusions: Our results will systematically quantify the impact of faster and abbreviated searching on treatment effect estimates across a wide range of CSR topics.
[1] Nussbaumer-Streit et al. Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches for rapid reviews: protocol of a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic study. Sys rev. 2016;5:197