A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews

Reynen, Emily; Robson, Reid; Ivory, John D.; Hwee, Jeremiah; Straus, Sharon E.; Pham, Ba’; Tricco, Andrea C.

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.001

Cited by 43 publications

(37 citation statements)

References 22 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…19 For example, only one-fourth of the reviews assessed the methodological quality of primary studies using a standardized tool, such as Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) critical appraisal tools, Downs and Black Involving only one reviewer to screen studies, conducting review without adequate expertise or consulting experts, including small number of studies and faster completion with poorer reporting quality could be possible reasons. 42 Furthermore, lack of wellestablished and harmonized criteria for academic carrier promotion and incentivization, which may lead researchers to focus only on the number of publication instead of ensuring the quality of reviews.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of biomedical and public health reviews in Ethiopia from 1970 to 2018: trends, methodological qualities, gaps and future directions

Alemu

Mohammed

Endalamaw

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction:Globally, there has been a dramatic increment of narrative reviews, systematic reviews and overview publication rates. In Ethiopia, only small number of reviews are published and no overviews conducted in biomedical and public health disciplines. Therefore, we aimed to (1) assess the trend of narrative and systematic reviews in Ethiopia, (2) examine their methodological quality and (3) suggest future directions for improvement. Methods:PubMed, EMBASE, Web of Science, SCOPUS, CINHAL, WHO Global Index Medicus, Cochrane Library and PsycINFO electronic databases were searched and supplemented by hand searching as well. All narrative reviews and systematic reviews with or without a meta-analysis from 1970 to April 2018 were included. The International Narrative Systematic assessment (INSA) for narrative reviews and A MeaSurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR-2) for systematic reviews with or without a meta-analysis were used for quality appraisal. Fisher's exact test at the p-value threshold of 0.05 was used to compare the differences in methodological quality. Results:Of the 2,201 initially identified articles, 106 articles published from 1970 to 2018 were eligible for full-text review. Among included reviews, 50.9% were narrative reviews, 16% were systematic reviews and 33.1% were systematic reviews with metaanalyses. Twenty-nine percent were published in Ethiopia and 43.4% were published after 2015. 85.1% of narrative reviews poorly described the characteristics of included studies and 63.8% did not report a conflict of interest. In systematic reviews, 89.6%, 91.7%, and 100% did not register/publish the protocol, justifying the selection of the study designs for inclusion and report sources of funding for the primary studies respectively. Overall,What is new? Key findings• The publication rate of narrative and systematic reviews have risen in Ethiopia.• Almost half of narrative reviews and three-fourths of systematic reviews with or without meta-analysis had poor scientific methodological quality. What this adds to what is known P a g e | 513. Bown M, Sutton A. Quality control in systematic reviews and meta-analyses.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Overview of biomedical and public health reviews in Ethiopia from 1970 to 2018: trends, methodological qualities, gaps and future directions

Alemu

Mohammed

Endalamaw

et al. 2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Application of such software can substantially reduce reviewers' workload and expedite the dissemination of findings, especially in cases where reviewers have to screen a large number of records. Of note, a recent study comparing systematic reviews and sametopic rapid reviews found that median duration of completion was 9.5 months for systematic reviews and 3 months for rapid reviews, although findings were generally consistent between the two types of reviews [54]. Limitations should also be acknowledged at the study and review level.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 95%

“…Moreover, we focused on the highest quality of evidence derived exclusively from RCTs and, in comparison with a previous systematic review on shared decision-making and outcomes in Type 2 diabetes [8], we included additional data from seven publications [23][24][25][26][27]36,38] that assessed different types of PtDAs. Of note, a recent study comparing systematic reviews and sametopic rapid reviews found that median duration of completion was 9.5 months for systematic reviews and 3 months for rapid reviews, although findings were generally consistent between the two types of reviews [54]. In particular, when applied prior to screening abstracts, the RCT model accurately excluded approximately half of search records as non-RCTs.…”

Section: Strengths and Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Decision aids for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: an effectiveness rapid review and meta‐analysis

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Aims To perform a rapid review and meta-analysis of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) evaluating patient decision aids (PtDAs) for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus. Methods We searched Medline and the Cochrane Library for RCTs assessing PtDAs in people with Type 2 diabetes. PtDAs were defined as tools designed to help people engage in decision-making about healthcare options, such as making treatment choices or setting therapeutic goals. The study selection process was facilitated by an automated screening tool to identify RCTs. We classified outcomes into seven domains and conducted meta-analyses using random effects models. Results We included a total of 15 studies, nine of which were cluster RCTs, that evaluated 10 PtDAs. Thirteen trials compared a PtDA with usual care or usual care plus educational material, whereas two RCTs compared individually tailored vs. non-tailored PtDAs. Meta-analyses showed a favourable effect of PtDAs compared with usual care in reducing decisional conflict [weighted mean difference (WMD) À4.66, 95% confidence interval (CI) À7.93 to À1.39] and in improving knowledge (WMD 20.46, 95% CI 9.13 to 3.77). Use of PtDAs resulted in more active involvement in decision-making during the consultation, although no effect was evident in terms of glycaemic control or self-reported medication adherence.Conclusions PtDAs for people with Type 2 diabetes can improve the quality of decision-making and increase knowledge transfer. Interpretation of our findings is attenuated due to limitations related to the rapid review approach, including searching only two databases and performing data extraction and risk of bias assessment by a single reviewer. DIABETICMedicineMeta-analysis of decision aids for people with Type 2 diabetes T. Karagiannis et al.

show abstract

“…Although the reliability of rapid review findings might be limited compared to that of systematic reviews, decisions-makers increasingly request rapid review products to answer urgent clinical or public health questions [1,2]. For example, Australian policy agencies used 134 of 150 commissioned rapid reviews (89%) to decide the details of a policy or program, identify priorities for future action, or communicate evidence to stakeholders [3].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

Affengruber

Wagner

Waffenschmidt

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies. Methods We used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews. Results For the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21). Conclusions Within the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.

show abstract

A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews

Cited by 43 publications

References 22 publications

Overview of biomedical and public health reviews in Ethiopia from 1970 to 2018: trends, methodological qualities, gaps and future directions

Overview of biomedical and public health reviews in Ethiopia from 1970 to 2018: trends, methodological qualities, gaps and future directions

Decision aids for people with Type 2 diabetes mellitus: an effectiveness rapid review and meta‐analysis

Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About