No abstract

Most clinical trials on meditation practices are generally characterized by poor methodological quality with significant threats to validity in every major quality domain assessed. Despite a statistically significant improvement in the methodological quality over time, it is imperative that future trials on meditation be rigorous in design, execution, analysis, and the reporting of results.

IntroductionRapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR.MethodsReview of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3).ResultsAcross all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases.ConclusionRR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.

The systematic use of evidence to inform healthcare decisions, particularly health technology assessment (HTA), has gained increased recognition. HTA has become a standard policy tool for informing decision makers who must manage the entry and use of pharmaceuticals, medical devices, and other technologies (including complex interventions) within health systems, for example, through reimbursement and pricing. Despite increasing attention to HTA activities, there has been no attempt to comprehensively synthesize good practices or emerging good practices to support populationbased decision-making in recent years. After the identification of some good practices through the release of the ISPOR Guidelines Index in 2013, the ISPOR HTA Council identified a need to more thoroughly review existing guidance. The purpose of this effort was to create a basis for capacity building, education, and improved consistency in approaches to HTA-informed decision-making. Our findings suggest that although many good practices have been developed in areas of assessment and some other key aspects of defining HTA processes, there are also many areas where good practices are lacking. This includes good practices in defining the organizational aspects of HTA, the use of deliberative processes, and measuring the impact of HTA. The extent to which these good practices are used and applied by HTA bodies is beyond the scope of this report, but may be of interest to future researchers.

No abstract