Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review

Hamel, Candyce; Michaud, Alan; Thuku, Micere; Affengruber, Lisa; Skidmore, Becky; Nußbaumer-Streit, Barbara; Stevens, Adrienne; Garritty, Chantelle

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.027

Cited by 25 publications

(33 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…We conducted a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of RRs and proposed a definition of RR that covers the most common themes that were identified in approximately 50% or more of the 216 RRs and 90 methods articles included [22]. We also undertook a second scoping review that identified 14 empirical studies that evaluated RR methods, which we mapped to stages of review conduct [23]. The RRMG also led two methodological studies: one that assessed the impact of limiting inclusion criteria solely to English language publications [24] and one that assessed the accuracy of single-reviewer screening vs. dualreviewer screening as part of an online parallel group randomized controlled trial using the Cochrane Crowd platform [25].…”

Section: Underlying Evidence and Primary Studies For Rr Defining Featmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews

Garritty

Gartlehner

Nußbaumer-Streit

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Self Cite

610

706

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Objective To develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority. Study Design Interim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided. Results Based on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for SRs is highlighted. Conclusion The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.

show abstract

Section: Underlying Evidence and Primary Studies For Rr Defining Featmentioning

confidence: 99%

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews

Garritty

Gartlehner

Nußbaumer-Streit

et al. 2021

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Self Cite

610

706

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Systematic reviews generally include evidence from randomised controlled trials, and observational epidemiological studies, however, recently the importance of including qualitative evidence has become increasingly recognised [7,10]. Systematic reviews, although thorough, are also very resource-intensive and may take a long time to complete [11]. A growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis in response to the needs of decision-makers has increased the popularity of rapid literature reviews [11].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic reviews, although thorough, are also very resource-intensive and may take a long time to complete [11]. A growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis in response to the needs of decision-makers has increased the popularity of rapid literature reviews [11]. Rapid reviews are designed to expedite the review [12,13] through a number of compromises including reducing the scope, reducing the number of sources searched (often by including only systematic reviews or economic evaluations), exclusion of grey literature and foregoing double screening and data extraction [11,12].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Anderson

Howarth

Vainre

et al. 2020

BMC Med Res Methodol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background There is consensus that health services commissioning and clinical practice should be driven by scientific evidence. However, workload pressures, accessibility of peer reviewed publications and skills to find, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence are often cited as barriers to uptake of research evidence by practitioners and commissioners alike. In recent years a growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis to inform commissioning decisions about healthcare service delivery and provision of care contributed to an increasing popularity of scoping literature reviews (SLRs). Yet, comprehensive guidelines for conducting and reporting SLRs are still relatively scarce. Methods The exemplar review used as a worked example aimed to provide a readily available, comprehensive, and user-friendly repository of research evidence for local commissioners to help them make evidence-informed decisions about redesigning East of England Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In conducting the review, we were broadly guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, however some modifications were made at different stages to better reflect the largely pragmatic objective of this review. This paper compares the methodology used with existing methodological frameworks for scoping studies, to add to the existing knowledge base. Results We proposed the following advancements to the existing SLR frameworks: (i) Assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise; (ii); Draw on expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice; (iii) Pre-register the review protocol. Keep a detailed record of all steps and decisions and consider how they would impact on generalisability and utility of review findings; (iv) Use systematic procedures for literature searchers, selection of studies, data extraction and analysis; (v) If feasible, appraise the quality of included evidence; (vi) Be transparent about limitations of findings. Conclusions Despite some methodological limitations, scoping literature reviews are a useful method of rapidly synthesising a large body of evidence to inform commissioning and transformation of CAMHS. SLRs allow researchers to start with a broader questions, to explore the issue from different perspectives and perhaps find more comprehensive solutions that are not only effective, but also accounted for their feasibility and acceptability to key stakeholders.

show abstract

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Systematic reviews, although thorough, are also very resource-intensive and may take a long time to complete (11). A growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis in response to the needs of decisionmakers has increased the popularity of rapid literature reviews (11). Rapid reviews are designed to expedite the review (12,13)through a number of compromises including reducing the scope, reducing the number of sources searched (often by including only systematic reviews or economic evaluations), exclusion of grey literature and foregoing double screening and data extraction (11,12).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of children and adolescent mental health services.

Anderson

Howarth

Vainre

et al. 2020

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: There is consensus that health services commissioning and clinical practice should be driven by scientific evidence. However, workload pressures, accessibility of peer reviewed publications and skills to find, appraise, and synthesise relevant evidence are often cited as barriers to uptake of research evidence by practitioners and commissioners alike. In recent years a growing requirement for rapid evidence synthesis to inform commissioning decisions about healthcare service delivery and provision of care contributed to an increasing popularity of scoping literature reviews (SLRs). Yet, comprehensive guidelines for conducting and reporting SLRs are still relatively scarce. Methods: The exemplar review used as a worked example aimed to provide a readily available, comprehensive, and user-friendly repository of research evidence for local commissioners to help them make evidence-informed decisions about redesigning East of England Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services. In conducting the review, we were broadly guided by Arksey and O’Malley’s framework, however some modifications were made at different stages to better reflect the largely pragmatic objective of this review. This paper compares the methodology used with existing methodological frameworks for scoping studies, to add to the existing knowledge base.Results: We proposed the following advancements to the existing SLR frameworks: (i) Assemble a research team with complementary skills and expertise; (ii); Draw on expertise of external partners, particularly practitioners, decision-makers and commissioners who will be translating findings into practice; (iii) Pre-register the review protocol. Keep a detailed record of all steps and decisions and consider how they would impact on generalisability and utility of review findings; (iv) Use systematic procedures for literature searchers, selection of studies, data extraction and analysis; (v) If feasible, appraise the quality of included evidence; (vi) Be transparent about limitations of findings.Conclusions: Despite some methodological limitations, scoping literature reviews are a useful method of rapidly synthesising a large body of evidence to inform commissioning and transformation of CAMHS. SLRs allow researchers to start with a broader questions, to explore the issue from different perspectives and perhaps find more comprehensive solutions that are not only effective, but also accounted for their feasibility and acceptability to key stakeholders.

show abstract

Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review

Cited by 25 publications

References 38 publications

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of Children and Adolescent Mental Health Services

Advancing methodology for scoping reviews: recommendations arising from a scoping literature review (SLR) to inform transformation of children and adolescent mental health services.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About