Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Beecher, Claire; Toomey, Elaine; Maeso, Beccy; Whiting, Caroline; Stewart, Derek; Worrall, Andrew; Elliott, Jim; Smith, Maureen; Tierney, Theresa; Blackwood, Bronagh; Maguire, Teresa; Kampman, Melissa; Ling, Benny; Gill, Catherine; Healy, Patricia; Houghton, Catherine; Garritty, Chantelle; Thomas, James; Tricco, Andrea C; Burke, Nikita N.; Keenan, Ciara; Devane, Declan

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.002

Cited by 11 publications

(22 citation statements)

References 15 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This is done by speeding up the ways we plan, do and/or share the results of conventional structured (systematic) reviews by simplifying or omitting a variety of methods that should be clearly defined by the authors." 22 Priority III involved extensive collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to do something similar for rapid reviews. The study used a modified James Lind Alliance (JLA) priority-setting partnership (PSP).…”

Section: Identifying Priorities For Swars: Priority IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Key to the development of the SWAR agenda is the identification of priorities for research, and this need has been addressed by Priority III. Priority III was an Evidence Synthesis Ireland project that identified the top 10 unanswered questions on how we plan, do, and share the findings of rapid reviews 22 . Rapid reviews were defined as “A rapid review is a type of evidence synthesis that brings together and summarises information from lots of different research studies to produce evidence for people such as the public, researchers, policymakers and funders in a systematic, resource‐efficient manner.…”

Section: Identifying Priorities For Swars: Priority IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Study within a review (SWAR)

Devane

Burke

Treweek

et al. 2022

J Evidence Based Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Systematic reviews and other evidence syntheses bring together information from multiple studies to help inform policy and practice decisions. They use systematic methods to identify, select, appraise (where appropriate), and analyze a body of evidence and report their findings with the aim of minimizing bias and helping people make wellinformed decisions. Alongside the enormous increase in the number of systematic reviews, 1,2 recent decades have witnessed prodigious growth in the evidence base to inform decisions on how we plan, do and share the findings of systematic reviews. 3 For example, methodological papers and consensus statements on the development and validation of search strategies, assessment of the risk of bias, synthesis of complex interventions, qualitative evidence synthesis, etc., regularly appear in peer-reviewed journals. [4][5][6][7] This evolving evidence base on how we plan, do, and share the findings of reviews is important, relevant and helpful. However, manyThis is an open access article under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs License, which permits use and distribution in any medium, provided the original work is properly cited, the use is non-commercial and no modifications or adaptations are made.

show abstract

Section: Identifying Priorities For Swars: Priority IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Identifying Priorities For Swars: Priority IIImentioning

confidence: 99%

Study within a review (SWAR)

Devane

Burke

Treweek

et al. 2022

J Evidence Based Medicine

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The Priority III Priority-Setting Partnership (PSP) 3 was conducted to identify the top 10 unanswered questions for future research on how we plan, do and share the results of rapid reviews in healthcare. The study was conducted by Evidence Synthesis Ireland (ESI, https://www.evidencesynthesisireland.ie/), in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA).…”

Section: Contextmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The context of this paper sits within the Priority III project 3 . Priority III was a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) conducted to identify the top 10 unanswered questions for future research on how we plan, do and share the results of rapid reviews in healthcare.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Priority III was a Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) conducted to identify the top 10 unanswered questions for future research on how we plan, do and share the results of rapid reviews in healthcare. A rapid review is a type of evidence synthesis that brings together and summarises information from lots of different research studies to produce evidence for people such as the public, researchers, policy makers and funders in a systematic, resource-e cient manner 3 . Priority III was conducted in collaboration with the James Lind Alliance (JLA), a non-pro t organisation that brings multiple stakeholders together to identify the most important evidence uncertainties about speci c topics.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership

Burke¹,

Stewart

Tierney

et al. 2022

Preprint

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Public and patient involvement aims to improve research quality, relevance, and appropriateness. Despite an increasing evidence base on the influence of public involvement in health research, the role of involvement in methodology research, i.e., how we plan, do, and share research, is less clear. Using a qualitative case study, we explored public involvement in a research priority-setting partnership in rapid review methodology (Priority III) to support public involvement in future methodology research. Methods: Participant observation, documentary analysis, interviews and focus groups were used to explore the processes of Priority III and identify the views and experiences of the participants of a steering group (n=26) regarding public involvement in a methodology priority-setting partnership. We used a single intrinsic case study research design and conducted two focus groups with five public partners, one focus group with four researches; and seven 1:1 interviews with researchers/methodologists and public partners. Nine episodes of participant observation were conducted. All data were analysed using template analysis. Results: The findings of this study present three main themes and six subthemes: Theme 1: We all bring unique qualities to the table Subtheme 1.1 - Coming from different perspectives towards shared-decision making; Subtheme 1.2 - Public partners bring pragmatism and grounding in reality; Theme 2: We need support and space at the table Subtheme 2.1 – Define and develop support needed for meaningful involvement; Subtheme 2.2 - Creating safe space to listen, challenge and learn; Theme 3: We all benefit from working together Subtheme 3.1 - Reciprocity in mutual learning and capacity building; Subtheme 3.2 - Relationships as partners in research, with a feeling of togetherness. Conclusions: Despite initial uncertainty due to working outside of their comfort zones, public partners contributed meaningfully to a methodology priority-setting partnership when supported to address the challenges around an abstract topic to which all brought different perspectives. Our findings provide insight into factors that facilitated public involvement in this research context. Communication and trust underpin the findings. We also provide examples of practical actions and considerations for future research and research teams.

show abstract

How to develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests according to experts: A qualitative exploration of researcher views

Arévalo-Rodríguez

Baxter

Steingart

et al. 2023

Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background: Rapid reviews (RRs) have been used to provide timely evidence for policymakers, health providers, and the public in several healthcare scenarios, most recently during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Despite the essential role of diagnosis in clinical management, data about how to perform RRs of diagnostic tests are scarce. We aimed to explore the views and perceptions of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence about the value of methods used to accelerate the review process.Methods: We performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence. We carried out the interviews in English between July and December 2021. Initial reading and coding of the transcripts were performed using NVIVO qualitative data analysis software.Results: Of a total of 23 invited experts, 16 (70%) responded. We interviewed all 16 participants representing key roles in evidence synthesis. We identified 14 recurring themes including the review question, characteristics of the review team, and use of automation, as the topics with the highest number of quotes. Some participants considered several methodological "shortcuts" to be

show abstract

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership

Cited by 11 publications

References 15 publications

Study within a review (SWAR)

Study within a review (SWAR)

Sharing space at the research table: exploring public and patient involvement in a methodology priority setting partnership

How to develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests according to experts: A qualitative exploration of researcher views

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About