Format

Send to

Choose Destination
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:61-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.012. Epub 2015 Aug 29.

An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods.

Author information

1
Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th Floor, 155 College St., Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada.
2
Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada.
3
Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, The Ottawa Hospital, General Campus, Centre for Practice Changing Research Building, 501 Smyth Road, PO BOX 201B, Ottawa, Ontario K1H 8L6, Canada.
4
School of Nursing, McMaster University, 1280 Main Street West-HSC 3N24E, Hamilton, Ontario L8S 4K1, Canada.
5
Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; Department of Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Toronto, 27 Kings College Circle, Toronto, Ontario M5S 1A1, Canada. Electronic address: sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES:

To solicit experiences with and perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policy makers, industry, journal editors, and health care providers.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING:

An international survey of rapid review producers and modified Delphi.

RESULTS:

Forty rapid review producers responded on our survey (63% response rate). Eighty-eight rapid reviews with 31 different names were reported. Rapid review commissioning organizations were predominantly government (78%) and health care (58%) organizations. Several rapid review approaches were identified, including updating the literature search of previous reviews (92%); limiting the search strategy by date of publication (88%); and having only one reviewer screen (85%), abstract data (84%), and assess the quality of studies (86%). The modified Delphi included input from 113 stakeholders on the rapid review approaches from the survey. Approach 1 (search limited by date and language; study selection by one reviewer only, and data abstraction and quality appraisal conducted by one reviewer and one verifier) was ranked the most feasible (72%, 81/113 responses), with the lowest perceived risk of bias (12%, 12/103); it also ranked second in timeliness (37%, 38/102) and fifth in comprehensiveness (5%, 5/100).

CONCLUSION:

Rapid reviews have many names and approaches, and some methods might be more desirable than others.

KEYWORDS:

Consensus; Delphi; Knowledge synthesis; Rapid review; Survey; Systematic review

PMID:
26327490
DOI:
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.012
[Indexed for MEDLINE]

Supplemental Content

Full text links

Icon for Elsevier Science
Loading ...
Support Center