A scoping review of rapid review methodsReportar como inadecuado

A scoping review of rapid review methods - Descarga este documento en PDF. Documentación en PDF para descargar gratis. Disponible también para leer online.

BMC Medicine

, 13:224

First Online: 16 September 2015Received: 06 July 2015Accepted: 28 August 2015DOI: 10.1186-s12916-015-0465-6

Cite this article as: Tricco, A.C., Antony, J., Zarin, W. et al. BMC Med 2015 13: 224. doi:10.1186-s12916-015-0465-6


BackgroundRapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review.

MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.

ResultsWe included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers one was included in two categories. The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe 58 % and North America 20 %. The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature 24 % or one database 2 %, limiting inclusion criteria by date 68 % or language 49 %, having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies 6 %, having one person abstract data and another verify 23 %, not conducting risk of bias-quality appraisal 7 % or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal 7 %, and presenting results as a narrative summary 78 %. Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent.

ConclusionsNumerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted.

KeywordsSystematic review Rapid review Scoping review AbbreviationsHTAHealth technology assessment

NRNot reported

ROBRisk of bias

SRSystematic review

Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article doi:10.1186-s12916-015-0465-6 contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Download fulltext PDF

Autor: Andrea C. Tricco - Jesmin Antony - Wasifa Zarin - Lisa Strifler - Marco Ghassemi - John Ivory - Laure Perrier - Brian Hut

Fuente: https://link.springer.com/

Documentos relacionados