Observational studies of traditional Chinese medicine may provide evidence nearly consistent with the randomized controlled trials: A meta-epidemiological study

Song, Haiqi; Li, Nian; Yang, Wenjie; Wu, Miaomiao; Liao, Xiaoyang; Zhang, Yonggang

doi:10.1016/j.imr.2022.100889

Cited by 1 publication

(2 citation statements)

References 51 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Several studies compared the effects of different study design types on results of meta-analyses, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus non-RCTs, [87][88][89][90][91] and observational studies versus RCTs. [92][93][94][95][96][97][98][99][100][101] However, few studies evaluated the influence of excluding or including certain design types of study on the combined results. Schwingshackl et al assessed the impact of incorporating matched cohort studies into Cochrane SRs that originally included only RCTs in nutrition research.…”

Section: Limiting Study Designmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several studies compared the effects of different study design types on results of meta‐analyses, such as randomized controlled trials (RCTs) versus non‐RCTs, 87–91 and observational studies versus RCTs 92–101 . However, few studies evaluated the influence of excluding or including certain design types of study on the combined results.…”

Section: The Impact Of Using Shortcuts In Rapid Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Guo,

Jiang,

Zhao

et al. 2024

J Evidence Based Medicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Rapid review (RR) could accelerate the traditional systematic review (SR) process by simplifying or omitting steps using various shortcuts. With the increasing popularity of RR, numerous shortcuts had emerged, but there was no consensus on how to choose the most appropriate ones. This study conducted a literature search in PubMed from inception to December 21, 2023, using terms such as “rapid review” “rapid assessment” “rapid systematic review” and “rapid evaluation”. We also scanned the reference lists and performed citation tracking of included impact studies to obtain more included studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of all RR approaches, shortcuts and studies assessing their effectiveness at each stage of RRs. Based on the current evidence, we provided recommendations on utilizing certain shortcuts in RRs. Ultimately, we identified 185 studies focusing on summarizing RR approaches and shortcuts, or evaluating their impact. There was relatively sufficient evidence to support the use of the following shortcuts in RRs: limiting studies to those published in English‐language; conducting abbreviated database searches (e.g., only searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL); omitting retrieval of grey literature; restricting the search timeframe to the recent 20 years for medical intervention and the recent 15 years for reviewing diagnostic test accuracy; conducting a single screening by an experienced screener. To some extent, the above shortcuts were also applicable to SRs. This study provided a reference for future RR researchers in selecting shortcuts, and it also presented a potential research topic for methodologists.

show abstract