Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Rapid reviews (RRs) have become a pragmatic alternative to systematic reviews (SRs) because they can be completed in much less time and provide decision-makers quick answers to urgent health system questions. The savings in resources is usually achieved by implementing one or more “shortcuts” in the review stages. Various RR shortcut methods have been used to produce RRs, but there is lack of agreement how best to conduct and deliver more timely reviews.
Objectives: The aim of this work was to perform a systematic scoping review to identify studies that have assessed one or more shortcut methods applicable for undertaking RRs and mapping these to review conduct stages and MECIR guidance.
Methods: An Information Specialist developed a search strategy in consultation with the review team, which was peer-reviewed. We searched several electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase) to identify the published literature, and searched for grey literature on websites of organizations that produce RRs. The initial database search produced over 30,000 records, so a more targeted strategy was implemented. Study selection was performed in two stages: titles and abstracts were screened using the liberal accelerated method, with some screening using an artificial intelligence tool. Full-text screening was performed independently, in duplicate. Data charting included the stage of conduct the method evaluated, the area of research, details on the nature of the comparison/evaluation, and a synopsis of related results. Information has been presented by stage of review conduct to identify existing and gaps in research. A mapping exercise to MECIR guidelines to show similarities and differences was also performed.
Results: The searches resulted in 1873 unique records, of which 156 were further evaluated, and 90 publications were included. Publications were divided into four categories: (1) Formal evaluation (n=14); (2) Development, which included four subcategories (n=65); (3) Comparison (n=2); and (4) Applying reporting guidelines/critical appraisal tools (n=3). Six studies were classified as “SR surrogates”. Four formal evaluation studies were composite evaluations, including more than one shortcut simultaneously. The remaining 10 studies evaluated searching, screening, data extraction, and “other” areas (e.g., involving stakeholders) (Figure 1). Due to complexities around shortcuts evaluated, in terms of methods and types of shortcuts, only a cursory mapping to MECIR criteria was possible.
Conclusions: Some methods shortcuts may be useful in the context of RRs, but there are limitations in the included studies that may limit their applicability. 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 from this scoping review 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 was to perform a systematic scoping review to identify studies that have assessed one or more shortcut methods applicable for undertaking RRs and mapping these to review conduct stages and MECIR guidance.
Methods: An Information Specialist developed a search strategy in consultation with the review team, which was peer-reviewed. We searched several electronic databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase) to identify the published literature, and searched for grey literature on websites of organizations that produce RRs. The initial database search produced over 30,000 records, so a more targeted strategy was implemented. Study selection was performed in two stages: titles and abstracts were screened using the liberal accelerated method, with some screening using an artificial intelligence tool. Full-text screening was performed independently, in duplicate. Data charting included the stage of conduct the method evaluated, the area of research, details on the nature of the comparison/evaluation, and a synopsis of related results. Information has been presented by stage of review conduct to identify existing and gaps in research. A mapping exercise to MECIR guidelines to show similarities and differences was also performed.
Results: The searches resulted in 1873 unique records, of which 156 were further evaluated, and 90 publications were included. Publications were divided into four categories: (1) Formal evaluation (n=14); (2) Development, which included four subcategories (n=65); (3) Comparison (n=2); and (4) Applying reporting guidelines/critical appraisal tools (n=3). Six studies were classified as “SR surrogates”. Four formal evaluation studies were composite evaluations, including more than one shortcut simultaneously. The remaining 10 studies evaluated searching, screening, data extraction, and “other” areas (e.g., involving stakeholders) (Figure 1). Due to complexities around shortcuts evaluated, in terms of methods and types of shortcuts, only a cursory mapping to MECIR criteria was possible.
Conclusions: Some methods shortcuts may be useful in the context of RRs, but there are limitations in the included studies that may limit their applicability. 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 from this scoping review will provide needed information to RR producers to get high-quality information to those who need it in an expedited timeline.