Article type
Abstract
Background: The BMJ Rapid Recommendations project aims to rapidly produce evidence summaries and trustworthy clinical practice recommendations within 90 days after identification of potentially practice-changing evidence. The process involves conducting high-quality systematic reviews within 45 days. The TITE project is testing if a technology-enhanced approach can be as much or more accurate and efficient than the traditional-intensive approach.
Objectives: In TITE Q2I (Traditional-intensive versus technology-enhanced / question-to-inclusion time) we will compare both approaches for the process of developing a search strategy, independently screening records and selecting eligible articles in full text.
Methods:The traditional-intensive approach is based on a wide collaborative network of clinicians, patients and methodologists following methods and processes defined in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations protocol.
Technology-enhanced approach combines reuse of information from Epistemonikos database, software to facilitate search strategy creation, automated execution and deduplication, a screening platform (Collaboratron TM), machine learning among other technologies.
We will select 5 systematic reviews from the BMJ Rapid Recommendations project for which the question-to-inclusion process is already completed. We will set teams of at least two researchers that did not integrate the original review team which will receive the inclusion criteria and a list of electronic databases to be searched.
We will measure time, search efficiency and accuracy.
Results: Both traditional-intensive and technology-enhanced approaches have been pilot-tested, but not yet being compared for the same reviews.
We will present the results during the Summit.
Conclusions: Finding innovative ways of reducing the burden of the initial steps of systematic reviews are of relevance to the BMJ Rapid Recommendations project, but also to systematic reviewers in general.
Objectives: In TITE Q2I (Traditional-intensive versus technology-enhanced / question-to-inclusion time) we will compare both approaches for the process of developing a search strategy, independently screening records and selecting eligible articles in full text.
Methods:The traditional-intensive approach is based on a wide collaborative network of clinicians, patients and methodologists following methods and processes defined in the BMJ Rapid Recommendations protocol.
Technology-enhanced approach combines reuse of information from Epistemonikos database, software to facilitate search strategy creation, automated execution and deduplication, a screening platform (Collaboratron TM), machine learning among other technologies.
We will select 5 systematic reviews from the BMJ Rapid Recommendations project for which the question-to-inclusion process is already completed. We will set teams of at least two researchers that did not integrate the original review team which will receive the inclusion criteria and a list of electronic databases to be searched.
We will measure time, search efficiency and accuracy.
Results: Both traditional-intensive and technology-enhanced approaches have been pilot-tested, but not yet being compared for the same reviews.
We will present the results during the Summit.
Conclusions: Finding innovative ways of reducing the burden of the initial steps of systematic reviews are of relevance to the BMJ Rapid Recommendations project, but also to systematic reviewers in general.