Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: rapid reviews (RRs) have become a pragmatic alternative to systematic reviews (SRs) because they can be completed in less time and provide decision makers with quick answers to urgent health system questions. The saving in resources (i.e. time and cost) is usually achieved by implementing one or more abbreviations in review process. Still, there is no consensus about the definition, format and the methods used for RRs. Various methods are available in the literature, but there is lack of agreement how best to conduct and deliver more timely reviews. Only a few studies have explored rapid review methods, even though numerous centres and institutions globally are conducting rapid reviews.
Objectives: the aim of this work is to perform two scoping reviews: one to identify RR definitions used in published literature (between 2016 to 2018), either referencing other works or using an author-defined definition; and one to identify studies that have assessed one or more methods applicable for undertaking RRs.
Methods: an Information Specialist developed a search strategy for each scoping review. We searched seven databases for published literature. We supplemented the RR methods scoping review by an Epistemonikos search, and a grey literature search of organizations that produce RRs. The initial methods scoping review search produced over 30,000 records, so a more targeted strategy was implemented.
Study selection was performed in two stages, and was the same for both scoping reviews. Briefly, we used the liberal accelerated method of one person to include and two persons to exclude, to identify potentially relevant records based on the title and abstract. We perfomed full-text screening independently, in duplicate.
Data charting for the definitions scoping review includes charting the definitions of RRs, and the reference. We will thematically analyze this information and present it graphically. Data charting for the methods scoping review includes which stage of conduct the method evaluated, the area of research, details on the nature of the comparison/evaluation, and related results. We will present this information by stage of conduct to identify existing research and areas that are lacking research. We will map results against MECIR guidelines to show similarities and differences between the recommended methods for SRs.
Results: the searches resulted in 2670 and 1836 unique records for the definitions and methods scoping reviews, respectively. Full-text screening is currently underway. The final results will be available for the Colloquium.
Conclusions: the results will serve to inform discussions within Cochrane regarding possible future implementation of RRs.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: although there was no direct patient or consumer involvement, the results will provide needed information to RR producers to get high-quality information to those who need it in an expedited timeline.
Objectives: the aim of this work is to perform two scoping reviews: one to identify RR definitions used in published literature (between 2016 to 2018), either referencing other works or using an author-defined definition; and one to identify studies that have assessed one or more methods applicable for undertaking RRs.
Methods: an Information Specialist developed a search strategy for each scoping review. We searched seven databases for published literature. We supplemented the RR methods scoping review by an Epistemonikos search, and a grey literature search of organizations that produce RRs. The initial methods scoping review search produced over 30,000 records, so a more targeted strategy was implemented.
Study selection was performed in two stages, and was the same for both scoping reviews. Briefly, we used the liberal accelerated method of one person to include and two persons to exclude, to identify potentially relevant records based on the title and abstract. We perfomed full-text screening independently, in duplicate.
Data charting for the definitions scoping review includes charting the definitions of RRs, and the reference. We will thematically analyze this information and present it graphically. Data charting for the methods scoping review includes which stage of conduct the method evaluated, the area of research, details on the nature of the comparison/evaluation, and related results. We will present this information by stage of conduct to identify existing research and areas that are lacking research. We will map results against MECIR guidelines to show similarities and differences between the recommended methods for SRs.
Results: the searches resulted in 2670 and 1836 unique records for the definitions and methods scoping reviews, respectively. Full-text screening is currently underway. The final results will be available for the Colloquium.
Conclusions: the results will serve to inform discussions within Cochrane regarding possible future implementation of RRs.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: although there was no direct patient or consumer involvement, the results will provide needed information to RR producers to get high-quality information to those who need it in an expedited timeline.