Rapid products have tremendous methodological variation; categorization based on time frame or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs.

BackgroundThere is increasing demand for rapid reviews and timely evidence synthesis. The goal of this project was to understand end-user perspectives on the utility and limitations of rapid products including evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews.MethodsInterviews were conducted with key informants representing: guideline developers (n = 3), health care providers/health system organizations (n = 3), research funders (n = 1), and payers/health insurers (n = 1). We elicited perspectives on important characteristics of systematic reviews, acceptable methods to streamline reviews, and uses of rapid products. We analyzed content of the interview transcripts and identified themes and subthemes.ResultsKey informants identified the following as critical features of evidence reviews: (1) originating from a reliable source (i.e., conducted by experienced reviewers from an established research organization), (2) addressing clinically relevant questions, and (3) trusted relationship between the user and producer. Key informants expressed strong preference for the following review methods and characteristics: use of evidence tables, quality rating of studies, assessments of total evidence quality/strength, and use of summary tables for results and conclusions. Most acceptable trade-offs to increase efficiencies were limiting the literature search (e.g., limiting search dates or language) and performing single screening of citations and full texts for relevance. Key informants perceived rapid products (particularly evidence inventories and rapid responses) as useful interim products to inform downstream investigation (e.g., whether to proceed with a full review or guideline, direction for future research). Most key informants indicated that evidence analysis/synthesis and quality/strength of evidence assessments were important for decision-making. They reported that rapid reviews in particular were useful for guideline development on narrow topics, policy decisions when a quick turn-around is needed, decision-making for practicing clinicians in nuanced clinical settings, and decisions about coverage by payers/health insurers. Rapid reviews may be more relevant within specific clinical settings or health systems; whereas, broad/national guidelines often need a traditional systematic review.ConclusionsKey informants interviewed in our study indicated that evidence inventories, rapid responses, and rapid reviews have utility in specific decisions and contexts. They indicated that the credibility of the review producer, relevance of key questions, and close working relationship between the end-user and producer are critical for any rapid product. Our findings are limited by the sample size which may have been too small to reach saturation for the themes described.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0425-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

The U.S. Preventive Services Task Force (USPSTF) provides independent, objective, and scientifically rigorous recommendations for clinical preventive services. A primary concern is to avoid even the appearance of members having special interests that might influence their ability to judge evidence and formulate unbiased recommendations. The conflicts of interest policy for the USPSTF is described, as is the formal process by which best practices were incorporated to update the policy. The USPSTF performed a literature review, conducted key informant interviews, and reviewed conflicts of interest policies of ten similar organizations. Important findings included transparency and public accessibility; full disclosure of financial relationships; disclosure of non-financial relationships (that create the potential for bias and compromise a member's objective judgment); disclosure of family members' conflicts of interests; and establishment of appropriate reporting periods. Controversies in best practices include the threshold of financial disclosures, ease of access to conflicts of interest policies and declarations, vague definition of non-financial biases, and request for family members' conflicts of interests (particularly those that are non-financial in nature). The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy includes disclosures for immediate family members, a clear non-financial conflicts of interest definition, long look-back period and application of the policy to prospective members. Conflicts of interest is solicited from all members every 4 months, formally reviewed, adjudicated, and made publicly available. The USPSTF conflicts of interest policy is publicly available as part of the USPSTF Procedure Manual. A continuous improvement process can be applied to conflicts of interest policies to enhance public trust in members of panels, such as the USPSTF, that produce clinical guidelines and recommendations.

Purpose: This study estimates the prevalence of depression assessment in adults age 35 and older and how prevalence varies by sociodemographic characteristics and depressive symptoms.Methods: We used a nationally representative survey, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Medical Expenditure Panel Survey, to evaluate if adults 35؉ were being assessed for depression by their health care providers in 2014 and 2015. Using multivariate logistic regression, we examined the health and sociodemographic characteristics of patients associated with depression assessment.Results: Approximately 50% of US adults aged 35؉ were being assessed for depression (48.6%; 95% CI, 45.5%-51.6%). The following were less likely to be assessed

Insights from systematic reviews can help new studies better meet the priorities and needs of patients and communities. However, systematic reviews unfortunately have not yet achieved this position to direct and guide new research studies. The Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program uses systematic reviews to identify gaps in current evidence and has developed a systematic process of prioritizing these gaps with stakeholder input into clearly defined "future research needs." Eight Evidence-based Practice Centers began to apply this effort in 2010 to various clinical and policy topics. Gaps that prevented systematic reviewers from answering central questions of the review may include insufficient studies on subpopulations, insufficient studies with appropriate comparators, lack of appropriate outcomes measured, and methods problems. Stakeholder panels, consisting of advocacy groups, patients, researchers, clinicians, funders, and policymakers, help refine the gaps through multiple conference calls and prioritization exercises. Each report highlights a focused set of 4 to 15 high-priority needs with an accompanying description of possible considerations for study design. Identification of high-priority research needs could potentially speed the development and implementation of high-priority, stakeholder-engaged research.