Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: An analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews

被引：91

作者：

Featherstone R.M. ^{[1
]}

Dryden D.M. ^{[1
]}

Foisy M. ^{[1
]}

Guise J.-M. ^{[2
]}

Mitchell M.D. ^{[3
]}

Paynter R.A. ^{[4
]}

Robinson K.A. ^{[5
]}

Umscheid C.A. ^{[6
]}

Hartling L. ^{[1
]}

机构：

[1] Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE), University of Alberta Evidence-based Practice Centre, Edmonton, T6G 1C9, AB

[2] Oregon Health and Science University, Portland, 97239, OR

[3] ECRI Institute - Penn Medicine AHRQ EPC and the Center for Evidence-based Practice, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 19462-1298, PA

[4] Scientific Resource Center, Portland VA Research Foundation, Portland, 97239, OR

[5] Johns Hopkins University Evidence-based Practice Center, Baltimore, 21205, MD

[6] ECRI Institute - Penn Medicine AHRQ EPC, Center for Evidence-based Practice and the Perelman School of Medicine, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia, 19104, PA

来源：

Systematic Reviews | / 4卷 / 1期

基金：

美国医疗保健研究与质量局;

关键词：

Evidence-based practice; Health technology assessment; Knowledge synthesis; Rapid review; Review literature as topic; Systematic review;

D O I：

10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4

中图分类号：

学科分类号：

摘要：

Background: Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented. Results: A cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods. Conclusions: RR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards. © 2015 Featherstone et al.

引用

共 24 条

[1]

Khangura S., Polisena J., Clifford T.J., Farrah K., Kamel C., Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment, Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 30, pp. 20-27, (2014)

[2]

Higgins J.P., Green S., Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions, (2011)

[3]

Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews, (2011)

[4]

Lehoux P., Tailliez S., Denis J.L., Hivon M., Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: diversification of products and contextualization of findings, Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 20, pp. 325-336, (2004)

[5]

Hartling L., Guise J., Kato E., Anderson J., Aronson N., Belinson S., Et al., EPC methods: an exploration of methods and context for the production of rapid reviews, (2015)

[6]

Brassey J.

[7]

Milne R., Clegg A., Stevens A., HTA responses and the classic HTA report, Public Health Med, 25, pp. 102-106, (2003)

[8]

Tricco A., Tetzlaff J., Moher D., The art and science of knowledge synthesis, J Clin Epidemiol, 64, pp. 11-20, (2011)

[9]

Silva V., Grande A., Martimbianco A., Riera R., Carvalho A., Overview of systematic reviews - a new type of study. Part 1: why and for whom?, Sao Paulo Med J, 130, pp. 398-404, (2012)

[10]

Kendall S., Summaries of evidence: an adjunct to knowledge translation?, Prim Health Care Res Dev, 14, pp. 107-108, (2013)

← 1 2 3 →