Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: During the COVID-19 pandemic, a large increase in rapid reviews (RRs) was identified. This is mainly because the design appears as an alternative to provide timely and rapid responses to emerging issues. RRs follow the method of systematic reviews, but they simplify or omit some steps to shorten the length of time in which the review is conducted.
Objectives: To identify and describe which steps were performed and which were omitted in published RRs, according to the list of recommendations suggested by the Cochrane Methods Group.
Methods: We searched databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL) to identify RRs of interventions for COVID-19. Two investigators independently screened and selected reviews that self-reported as RRs and that at least delivered a meta-analysis. We will extract the data related to the methodology used by each RR and compare them with the recommended steps by classifying them as “reported” or “omitted.” We will analyze compliance for each study and for the totality of the included studies. To chart compliance, we will classify it as “very high” when compliance ranges from 76% to 100% (100% corresponds to reporting for the eight recommendations), “moderate” when between 51% and 75%, “low” when between 26% and 50%, and “very low” when between 0% and 25%.
Results: This is a work in progress. The results will describe the performance of the method in a certain group of RRs. We will present a summary table of the Cochrane Methods recommendations for RRs, identifying whether there was reporting or omission of the step for each recommendation.
Conclusions: RRs are being used for decision-making both for everyday health and for public health policies, so it is essential that they are performed with a clear and specific method. We hope that the results of this analysis can inform whether an adequate method is being followed when carrying out RRs.
Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: This study does not involve direct participation of patients or consumers.
Objectives: To identify and describe which steps were performed and which were omitted in published RRs, according to the list of recommendations suggested by the Cochrane Methods Group.
Methods: We searched databases (MEDLINE, Embase, Epistemonikos, and CINAHL) to identify RRs of interventions for COVID-19. Two investigators independently screened and selected reviews that self-reported as RRs and that at least delivered a meta-analysis. We will extract the data related to the methodology used by each RR and compare them with the recommended steps by classifying them as “reported” or “omitted.” We will analyze compliance for each study and for the totality of the included studies. To chart compliance, we will classify it as “very high” when compliance ranges from 76% to 100% (100% corresponds to reporting for the eight recommendations), “moderate” when between 51% and 75%, “low” when between 26% and 50%, and “very low” when between 0% and 25%.
Results: This is a work in progress. The results will describe the performance of the method in a certain group of RRs. We will present a summary table of the Cochrane Methods recommendations for RRs, identifying whether there was reporting or omission of the step for each recommendation.
Conclusions: RRs are being used for decision-making both for everyday health and for public health policies, so it is essential that they are performed with a clear and specific method. We hope that the results of this analysis can inform whether an adequate method is being followed when carrying out RRs.
Patient, public and/or healthcare consumer involvement: This study does not involve direct participation of patients or consumers.