Article

Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment

Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Australia.
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care (Impact Factor: 1.56). 02/2008; 24(2):133-9. DOI: 10.1017/S0266462308080185
Source: PubMed

ABSTRACT This review assessed current practice in the preparation of rapid reviews by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, both internationally and in the Australian context, and evaluated the available peer-reviewed literature pertaining to the methodology used in the preparation of these reviews.
A survey tool was developed and distributed to a total of fifty International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members and other selected HTA organizations. Data on a broad range of themes related to the conduct of rapid reviews were collated, discussed narratively, and subjected to simple statistical analysis where appropriate. Systematic searches of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Australian Medical Index were undertaken in March 2007 to identify literature pertaining to rapid review methodology. Comparative studies, guidelines, program evaluations, methods studies, commentaries, and surveys were considered for inclusion.
Twenty-three surveys were returned (46 percent), with eighteen agencies reporting on thirty-six rapid review products. Axiomatic trends were identified, but there was little cohesion between organizations regarding the contents, methods, and definition of a rapid review. The twelve studies identified by the systematic literature search did not specifically address the methodology underpinning rapid review; rather, many highlighted the complexity of the area. Authors suggested restricted research questions and truncated search strategies as methods to limit the time taken to complete a review.
Rather than developing a formalized methodology by which to conduct rapid reviews, agencies should work toward increasing the transparency of the methods used for each review. It is perhaps the appropriate use, not the appropriate methodology, of a rapid review that requires future consideration.

Download full-text

Full-text

Available from: Inger Natvig Norderhaug, Jul 30, 2015
0 Followers
 · 
116 Views
  • Source
    • "The gold standard for the most effective and efficient rapid review methodology has not yet been established (Ganann et al., 2010; Harker and Kleijnen, 2012), nor has consensus on the definition of a rapid review been reached (Khangura et al., 2012). However, the literature has highlighted the importance of transparency to enable replication and the reporting of the assessed risk of bias of included studies over extensive searching as methods of ensuring rigour within rapid reviews (Watt et al., 2008; Ganann et al., 2010). Rapid reviews are not intended to replace full systematic reviews and often sacrifice important elements of systematic reviews, such as comprehensive searching with no language restrictions and indepth meta-analysis of results, because of restricted timelines. "
    The Society for Back Pain Research Conference, Dublin, Ireland; 11/2014
  • Source
    • "REA is a shortened version of full systematic review, originally developed as a rapid but rigorous means of evaluating the best available evidence for policy-making (GSR, 2013; Khangura et al., 2012). The REA approach is considered most viable for research questions which are constrained or focussed and well-aligned with existing research, and for subject areas where methods for the evaluation and synthesis of reviewed evidence have already been established (Thomas, 2013; Thomas, Newman & Oliver, 2013; Watt et al., 2008). In comparison to full systematic reviews REAs involve less developed search strings, less comprehensive searching, simpler extraction of data and simpler quality appraisal. "
  • Source
    • "The gold standard for the most effective and efficient rapid review methodology has not yet been established (Ganann et al., 2010; Harker and Kleijnen, 2012), nor has consensus on the definition of a rapid review been reached (Khangura et al., 2012). However, the literature has highlighted the importance of transparency to enable replication and the reporting of the assessed risk of bias of included studies over extensive searching as methods of ensuring rigour within rapid reviews (Watt et al., 2008; Ganann et al., 2010). Rapid reviews are not intended to replace full systematic reviews and often sacrifice important elements of systematic reviews, such as comprehensive searching with no language restrictions and indepth meta-analysis of results, because of restricted timelines. "
    [Show abstract] [Hide abstract]
    ABSTRACT: BACKGROUND: Implementation fidelity is the extent to which an intervention is delivered as intended by intervention developers, and is extremely important as it increases confidence that changes in study outcomes are due to the effect of the intervention itself and not due to variability in implementation. A paucity of literature exists concerning implementation fidelity in physiotherapy research. DESIGN AND OBJECTIVES: This rapid review aimed to evaluate the implementation fidelity of group-based self-management interventions for people with osteoarthritis (OA) and/or chronic low back pain (CLBP). METHOD: Group-based self-management interventions delivered by health-care professionals (including at least one physiotherapist) involving adults with OA and/or CLBP were eligible for inclusion. The National Institutes of Health Behaviour Change Consortium Treatment Fidelity checklist was used to assess fidelity and applied independently by two reviewers. RESULTS: In total, 22 studies were found. Fidelity was found to be very low (mean score 36%) within the included studies with only one study achieving >80% on the framework. The domain of Training of Providers achieved the lowest fidelity rating (10%) across all studies. CONCLUSIONS: Overall levels of implementation fidelity are low in self-management interventions for CLBP and/or OA; however it is unclear whether fidelity is poor within the trials included in this review, or just poorly reported. There is a need for the development of fidelity reporting guidelines and for the refinement of fidelity frameworks upon which to base these guidelines.
    Manual Therapy 10/2014; DOI:10.1016/j.math.2014.10.012 · 1.76 Impact Factor
Show more