Rapid Versus Full Systematic Reviews: Validity in Clinical Practice?

Watt, Amber M.; Cameron, A Scott; Sturm, Lana; Lathlean, Timothy; Babidge, Wendy; Blamey, Stephen; Facey, Karen; Hailey, David; Norderhaug, Inger Natvig; Maddern, Guy J.

doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04730.x

Cited by 134 publications

(125 citation statements)

References 7 publications

(6 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

120

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Furthermore, a comparative study by Watt et al, (2008) reported that the essential conclusions of the rapid and full reviews which they evaluated did not differ extensively, even though the scope of the rapid reviews was substantially narrower than that of full reviews.…”

Section: Running Head: Engaging Users Of Forensic Services In Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Best to Engage Users of Forensic Services in Research: Literature Review and Recommendations

Völlm

Foster

Bates

et al. 2017

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A note on versions:The version presented here may differ from the published version or from the version of record. If you wish to cite this item you are advised to consult the publisher's version. Please see the repository url above for details on accessing the published version and note that access may require a subscription.For more information, please contact eprints@nottingham.ac.uk AbstractGuidance on service user involvement is available to help researchers working with people with mental health problems, but there is currently no comprehensive guidance relating to forensic settings where additional issues arise. This rapid review aims to summarise the currently available information on how best to engage users of forensic mental health services in the research process, and to make appropriate recommendations. Medline and five other databases were searched to May 2016 using relevant keywords and Medical Subject Headings, supplemented by a general Internet search. Eleven peer-reviewed journal papers and 12 reports or web-based documents were identified, the majority containing information derived using a qualitative methodology.

show abstract

Section: Running Head: Engaging Users Of Forensic Services In Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

How Best to Engage Users of Forensic Services in Research: Literature Review and Recommendations

Völlm

Foster

Bates

et al. 2017

International Journal of Forensic Mental Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Although rapid reviews aim to expedite the uptake of research evidence while maintaining a systematic quality, there is no standard method for conducting the reviews (Ganann et al 2010). Other criticisms of rapid review include a higher likelihood of publication bias, the potential for missing some relevant information, and the possibility that the results may be less generalizable to a variety of practice settings (Ganann et al 2010;Watt et al 2008).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, traditional systematic reviews can take up to 12 months or more to complete while those who need the research information, like policy makers, usually need it within 6 months or less (Ganann et al 2010). Rapid review has been used to shorten the timeframes for delivering research evidence to policy makers and decision makers in healthcare (Watt et al 2008). These rapid reviews typically inform health systems planning and policy development.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…This offers an opportunity to deliver scientific information from the earliest stages of the research process to those who are currently making decisions about violence prevention practice. As Watt et al (2008) emphasized, it is important to consult both practitioners and subject matters experts in order to align the intended purpose with applicability. By considering the needs of the intended audience, applicability is more likely to be achieved.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Moving Knowledge into Action: Developing the Rapid Synthesis and Translation Process Within the Interactive Systems Framework

Thigpen

Puddy

Singer

et al. 2012

American J of Comm Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The Interactive Systems Framework (ISF) for Dissemination and Implementation presents an overall framework for translating knowledge into action. Each of its three systems requires further clarification and explanation to truly understand how to conduct this work. This article describes the development and initial application of the Rapid Synthesis and Translation Process (RSTP) using the exchange model of knowledge transfer in the context of one of the ISF systems: the Prevention Synthesis and Translation System (see [special issue "introduction" article] for a translation of the Wandersman et al. (Am J Community Psychol 41:3-4, 2008) article using the RSTP). This six-step process, which was developed by and for the Division of Violence Prevention at the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention in collaboration with partners, serves as an example of how a federal agency can expedite the transfer of research knowledge to practitioners to prevent violence. While the RSTP itself represents one of the possible functions in the Prevention Synthesis and Translation System, the resulting products affect both prevention support and prevention delivery as well. Examples of how practitioner and researcher feedback were incorporated into the Rapid Synthesis and Translation Process are discussed.

show abstract

“…Crucially, in a systematic evaluation of rapid review methods, Ganann et al reported that very few of the 70 identified rapid reviews explicitly addressed the issue of what was omitted from the review process and how bias could have been introduced. Nevertheless, Watt et al (2008) compared differences in the methodologies and essential conclusions between full reviews and rapid reviews on the same topic and concluded that whilst there were differences in methods used and the scope of the rapid reviews was narrower, the actual core conclusions did not differ extensively. Attempts have also been made to streamline the realist review process, in the form of rapid realist reviews which incorporate the use of expert groups to expedite the review.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Maximising the availability and use of high-quality evidence for policymaking: collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews

et al. 2018

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A number of barriers have been identified to getting evidence into policy. In particular, a lack of policy relevance and lack of timeliness have been identified as causing tension between researchers and policy makers. Rapid reviews are used increasingly as an approach to address timeliness, however, there is a lack of consensus on the most effective review methods and they do not necessarily address the need of policy makers. In the course of our work with the Scottish Government's Review of maternity and neonatal services we developed a new approach to evidence synthesis, which this paper will describe. We developed a standardised approach to produce collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews for policy making. This approach aimed to ensure the reviews were policy relevant, high quality and up-to-date, and which were presented in a consistent, transparent, and easy to access format. The approach involved the following stages: 1) establishing a review team with expertise both in the topic and in systematic reviewing, 2) clarifying the review questions with policy makers and subject experts (i.e., health professionals, service user representatives, researchers) who acted as review sponsors, 3) developing review protocols to systematically identify quantitative and qualitative review-level evidence on effectiveness, sustainability and acceptability; if review level evidence was not available, primary studies were sought, 4) agreeing a framework to structure the analysis of the reviews around a consistent set of key concepts and outcomes; in this case a published framework for maternal and newborn care was used, 5) developing an iterative process between policy makers, reviewers and review sponsors, 6) rapid searches and retrieval of literature, 7) analysis of identified literature which was mapped to the framework and included review sponsor input, 8) production of recommendations mapped to the agreed framework and presented as 'summary topsheets' in a consistent and easy to read format. Our approach has drawn on different components of pre-existing rapid review methodology to provide a rigorous and pragmatic approach to rapid evidence synthesis. Additionally, the use of a framework to map the evidence helped structure the review questions, expedited the analysis and provided a consistent template for recommendations, which took into account the policy context. We therefore propose that our approach (described in this paper) can be described as producing collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews for policy makers.

show abstract

Rapid Versus Full Systematic Reviews: Validity in Clinical Practice?

Abstract: Rapid reviews do not adhere to any single validated methodology. They frequently provide adequate advice on which to base clinical and policy decisions; however, their scope is limited, which may compromise their appropriateness for evaluating technologies in certain circumstances.

Cited by 134 publications

References 7 publications

How Best to Engage Users of Forensic Services in Research: Literature Review and Recommendations

How Best to Engage Users of Forensic Services in Research: Literature Review and Recommendations

Moving Knowledge into Action: Developing the Rapid Synthesis and Translation Process Within the Interactive Systems Framework

Maximising the availability and use of high-quality evidence for policymaking: collaborative, targeted and efficient evidence reviews

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About