Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Funders, clinicians, policy makers and healthcare organizations want high‑quality evidence in a timely and cost-effective manner to support decisions about healthcare interventions. Rapid reviews (RRs) are an evidence synthesis product that streamline systematic review methods. Currently no consensus definition, official guidance for conducting RRs, or established criteria for when a RR should or could be used in place of a systematic review exists. Consequently, PCORI seeks to better understand the methods and reporting of RRs as well as to explore how this streamlined approach may be used to inform clinical effectiveness research.
Objectives: Perform a scoping review of published RRs of healthcare interventions in order to: 1) Describe review characteristics and frequency of streamlined methodologic approaches; 2) Assess reporting quality; 3) Understand stakeholder involvement and ascertain insights into product utility.
Methods: We searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane to identify reports described in the title or abstract as RRs. We report the number of RRs published in the last five years (2015-2019) and conduct a detailed data extraction and assessment of study characteristics and reporting quality for recent RRs (2018-2019).
Results: Published RRs of healthcare interventions doubled from 2015 to 2019. Recent publications (2018/2019; N=57) show that RRs were most often produced by academic organizations (56%) and focus on nonpharmaceutical interventions (65%). Three-quarters (75%) cited disparate sources of informal RR guidance; 19% included meta-analysis; and 88% assessed risk of bias of individual studies. Broadly employed streamlined approaches to methods included narrowing the scope (100%), parallelization of tasks (26%), automating review tasks (4%), and using review shortcuts (100%). For the latter, approximately half of RRs employed one reviewer or one reviewer with a verifier to perform title/abstract screening; fewer rapid reviews applied limited reviewer methods for full text screening (30%), data extraction (42%), and critical appraisal (18%). Preliminary findings from 2019 RR publications suggest that reporting quality ranges widely with PRISMA compliance noted for 35-98% (median=70%) of checklist items. Less than 20% specifically called out the streamlined approaches that distinguished the report as a RR and rationale for use. Additionally, stakeholder involvement and time to complete the review were infrequently reported (4% and 18%, respectively). RRs consistently identified research gaps or provided recommendations for future study (84%). This work is ongoing and additional results will be presented at the Colloquium.
Conclusions: Preliminary findings suggest that RRs focused on healthcare interventions utilize a wide range of streamlined approaches with variable reporting quality. Future RRs would benefit from structured reporting strategies and formal guidance.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: N/A
Objectives: Perform a scoping review of published RRs of healthcare interventions in order to: 1) Describe review characteristics and frequency of streamlined methodologic approaches; 2) Assess reporting quality; 3) Understand stakeholder involvement and ascertain insights into product utility.
Methods: We searched Web of Science, PubMed, and Cochrane to identify reports described in the title or abstract as RRs. We report the number of RRs published in the last five years (2015-2019) and conduct a detailed data extraction and assessment of study characteristics and reporting quality for recent RRs (2018-2019).
Results: Published RRs of healthcare interventions doubled from 2015 to 2019. Recent publications (2018/2019; N=57) show that RRs were most often produced by academic organizations (56%) and focus on nonpharmaceutical interventions (65%). Three-quarters (75%) cited disparate sources of informal RR guidance; 19% included meta-analysis; and 88% assessed risk of bias of individual studies. Broadly employed streamlined approaches to methods included narrowing the scope (100%), parallelization of tasks (26%), automating review tasks (4%), and using review shortcuts (100%). For the latter, approximately half of RRs employed one reviewer or one reviewer with a verifier to perform title/abstract screening; fewer rapid reviews applied limited reviewer methods for full text screening (30%), data extraction (42%), and critical appraisal (18%). Preliminary findings from 2019 RR publications suggest that reporting quality ranges widely with PRISMA compliance noted for 35-98% (median=70%) of checklist items. Less than 20% specifically called out the streamlined approaches that distinguished the report as a RR and rationale for use. Additionally, stakeholder involvement and time to complete the review were infrequently reported (4% and 18%, respectively). RRs consistently identified research gaps or provided recommendations for future study (84%). This work is ongoing and additional results will be presented at the Colloquium.
Conclusions: Preliminary findings suggest that RRs focused on healthcare interventions utilize a wide range of streamlined approaches with variable reporting quality. Future RRs would benefit from structured reporting strategies and formal guidance.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: N/A