What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies

被引:17
作者
Haby, Michelle M. [1 ,2 ,3 ]
Barreto, Jorge Otavio Maia [4 ]
Kim, Jenny Yeon Hee [1 ]
Peiris, Sasha [1 ]
Mansilla, Cristian [5 ,6 ]
Torres, Marcela [1 ]
Guerrero-Magana, Diego Emmanuel [7 ]
Reveiz, Ludovic [1 ]
机构
[1] Pan Amer Hlth Org, Evidence & Intelligence Act Hlth Dept, Sci & Knowledge Unit, Washington, DC 20037 USA
[2] Univ Sonora, Dept Chem & Biol Sci, Hermosillo, Mexico
[3] Univ Melbourne, Melbourne Sch Populat & Global Hlth, Parkville, Vic, Australia
[4] Fundacao Oswaldo Cruz, Fiocruz Brasilia, Brasilia, Brazil
[5] McMaster Univ, McMaster Hlth Forum, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[6] McMaster Univ, Dept Hlth Res Methods Evidence & Impact, Hamilton, ON, Canada
[7] Univ Sonora, Dept Chem & Biol Sci, Doctoral Program Chem & Biol Sci & Hlth, Hermosillo, Mexico
关键词
evidence synthesis; rapid review methods; recommendations; risk of bias; systematic review; ABBREVIATED LITERATURE SEARCHES; RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED-TRIALS; MACHINE LEARNING ALGORITHMS; DATA EXTRACTION; AUTOMATION TOOLS; QUALITY; TITLE; EFFICIENCY; IDENTIFICATION; METAANALYSIS;
D O I
10.1002/jrsm.1664
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
Rapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision-maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full-text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies.
引用
收藏
页码:2 / 20
页数:19
相关论文
共 122 条
[1]   Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review [J].
Abou-Setta, Ahmed M. ;
Jeyaraman, Maya ;
Attia, Abdelhamid ;
Al-Inany, Hesham G. ;
Ferri, Mauricio ;
Ansari, Mohammed T. ;
Garritty, Chantelle M. ;
Bond, Kenneth ;
Norris, Susan L. .
PLOS ONE, 2016, 11 (12)
[2]   Future of Evidence Ecosystem Series: Evidence synthesis 2.0: when systematic, scoping, rapid, living, and overviews of reviews come together [J].
Akl, Elie A. ;
Haddaway, Neal R. ;
Rada, Gabriel ;
Lotfi, Tamara .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2020, 123 :162-165
[3]   Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review [J].
Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid ;
Moreno-Nunez, Paloma ;
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara ;
Steingart, Karen R. ;
Gonzalez Pena, Laura del Mar ;
Buitrago-Garcia, Diana ;
Kaunelis, David ;
Emparanza, Jose Ignacio ;
Alonso-Coello, Pablo ;
Tricco, Andrea C. ;
Zamora, Javier .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 116 :98-105
[4]  
Balk EM., ASSESSING ACCURACY G
[5]   Data extraction from machine-translated versus original language randomized trial reports: a comparative study [J].
Balk, Ethan M. ;
Chung, Mei ;
Chen, Minghua L. ;
Chang, Lina Kong Win ;
Trikalinos, Thomas A. .
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2013, 2
[6]   Machine learning algorithms for systematic review: reducing workload in a preclinical review of animal studies and reducing human screening error [J].
Bannach-Brown, Alexandra ;
Przybyla, Piotr ;
Thomas, James ;
Rice, Andrew S. C. ;
Ananiadou, Sophia ;
Liao, Jing ;
Macleod, Malcolm Robert .
SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS, 2019, 8 (1)
[7]  
BIREME, REP SEARCH STRAT VHL
[8]  
BIREME PAHO. EVID@EASY, GUID EV SEARCH LAT A
[9]   Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews [J].
Buscemi, Nina ;
Harding, Lisa ;
Vandermeer, Ben ;
Tjosvold, Lisa ;
Klassen, Terry P. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2006, 59 (07) :697-703
[10]   An efficient strategy allowed English-speaking reviewers to identify foreign-language articles eligible for a systematic review [J].
Busse, Jason W. ;
Bruno, Paul ;
Malik, Keshena ;
Connell, Gaelan ;
Torrance, David ;
Ngo, Trung ;
Kirnaayr, Karin ;
Avrahami, Daniel ;
Riva, John J. ;
Ebrahim, Shanil ;
Struijs, Peter A. A. ;
Brunarski, David ;
Burnie, Stephen J. ;
LeBlanc, Frances ;
Coomes, Eric A. ;
Steenstra, Ivan A. ;
Slack, Tesha ;
Rodine, Robert ;
Jim, Janey ;
Montori, Victor M. ;
Guyatt, Gordon H. .
JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2014, 67 (05) :547-553