DEFINING RAPID REVIEWS: A MODIFIED DELPHI CONSENSUS APPROACH

被引：0
作者：
Kelly S.E. [1 ,2 ]
Moher D. [1 ,3 ]
Clifford T.J. [1 ,4 ]
机构：
[1] School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa
[2] Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute
[3] Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program
来源：
| 1600年 / Cambridge University Press卷 / 32期
关键词：
Decision making; Definition; Delphi; Knowledge synthesis; Methodology; Rapid reviews; Time factors;
D O I：
10.1017/S0266462316000489
中图分类号：
C93 [管理学];
学科分类号：
12 ; 1201 ; 1202 ; 120202 ;
摘要：
Objectives: Rapid reviews are characterized as an accelerated evidence synthesis approach with no universally accepted methodology or definition. This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to develop a comprehensive set of defining characteristics for rapid reviews that may be used as a functional definition. Methods: Expert panelists with knowledge in rapid reviews and evidence synthesis were identified. In the first round, panelists were asked to answer a seventeen-item survey addressing a variety of rapid review topics. Results led to the development of statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews that were circulated to experts for agreement in a second survey round and further revised in a third round. Consensus was reached if ≥70 percent of experts agreed and there was stability in free-text comments. Results: A panel of sixty-six experts participated. Consensus was reached on ten of eleven statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews. According to the panel, rapid reviews aim to meet the requirements and timelines of a decision maker and should be conducted in less time than a systematic review. They use a variety of approaches to accelerate the evidence synthesis process, tailor the methods conventionally used to carry out systematic reviews, and use the most rigorous methods that the delivery time frame will allow. Conclusions: This study achieved consensus on ten statements describing the defining characteristics of rapid reviews based on the opinion of a panel of knowledgeable experts. Areas of disagreement were also highlighted. Findings emphasize the role of the decision maker and stress the importance of transparent reporting. Copyright © 2016 Cambridge University Press.
引用
收藏
页码：265 / 275
页数：10
相关论文
共 41 条
  • [1] Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [Updated March 2011], (2011)
  • [2] Popay J., Rogers A., Williams G., Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research, Qual Health Res., 8, pp. 341-351, (1998)
  • [3] Morton S., Levit L., Berg A., Eden J., Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews, (2011)
  • [4] Schunemann H.J., Moja L., Reviews: Rapid! rapid! rapid and systematic, Syst Rev., 4, (2015)
  • [5] Bero L., Busuttil G., Farquhar C., Et al., Measuring the performance of the Cochrane library, Cochrane Database Syst Rev., 12, (2012)
  • [6] Pai M., McCulloch M., Gorman J.D., Et al., Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: An illustrated, step-by-step guide, Natl Med J India., 17, pp. 86-95, (2004)
  • [7] Hailey D.M., The influence of technology assessments by advisory bodies on health policy and practice, Health Policy., 25, pp. 243-254, (1993)
  • [8] Ganann R., Ciliska D., Thomas H., Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews, Implement Sci., 5, (2010)
  • [9] Harker J., Kleijnen J., What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments, Int J Evid Based Healthc., 10, pp. 397-410, (2012)
  • [10] Khangura S., Konnyu K., Cushman R., Grimshaw J., Moher D., Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach, Syst Rev., 1, (2012)
12345