Article type
Year
Abstract
BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis for healthcare decision-making. In a previous scoping review, we examined the characteristics of RRs of diagnostic tests by scrutinizing repositories of Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies and papers published in indexed journals. However, due to an incomplete description of the methods used, as well as inclusion of only published reports, we could not provide a detailed account of the current practice for the development of RRs of diagnostic tests.
OBJECTIVE: We performed an international survey to better understand how RR methods are currently used to synthesize diagnostic evidence.
METHODS: We invited representatives from institutions that perform evidence synthesis from all over the world to participate in this closed survey, including members of the International Network of Agencies for HTA, the World Health Organization collaborating centers on HTA, the HTA Network of the Americas, and the HTA International Network (non-profit members). Data were collected from April to July 2019 and survey responses were de-identified and anonymized for all analyses. We performed all descriptive analysis using STATA 15.0.
RESULTS: A total of 74 institutions were contacted by email, and 25 of them indicated that they performed RRs of diagnostic tests. All these institutions reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR (e.g. limiting the number of index tests -76%- and limiting the intended applications of the test -80%); however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut, including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48% and 20%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first international survey assessing the current practice of methods for diagnostic test RRs. Our survey indicates greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of our previous scoping review analyzing published RRs. However, only two strategies (i.e. defining a structured question and the use of a previous review as starting point) were used for ≥ 90% of participants. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: No patients were involved in this research.
OBJECTIVE: We performed an international survey to better understand how RR methods are currently used to synthesize diagnostic evidence.
METHODS: We invited representatives from institutions that perform evidence synthesis from all over the world to participate in this closed survey, including members of the International Network of Agencies for HTA, the World Health Organization collaborating centers on HTA, the HTA Network of the Americas, and the HTA International Network (non-profit members). Data were collected from April to July 2019 and survey responses were de-identified and anonymized for all analyses. We performed all descriptive analysis using STATA 15.0.
RESULTS: A total of 74 institutions were contacted by email, and 25 of them indicated that they performed RRs of diagnostic tests. All these institutions reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR (e.g. limiting the number of index tests -76%- and limiting the intended applications of the test -80%); however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut, including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48% and 20%, respectively).
CONCLUSION: To the best of our knowledge, this is the first international survey assessing the current practice of methods for diagnostic test RRs. Our survey indicates greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of our previous scoping review analyzing published RRs. However, only two strategies (i.e. defining a structured question and the use of a previous review as starting point) were used for ≥ 90% of participants. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: No patients were involved in this research.