What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review

There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

Abstract

Background

Rapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research. This rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies sought to answer the question: What are the best methodologies to enable a rapid review of research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice?

Methods

This rapid review utilised systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol including clear inclusion criteria (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015998). A comprehensive search strategy was used, including published and grey literature, written in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish, from 2004 onwards. Eleven databases and two websites were searched. Two review authors independently applied the eligibility criteria. Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. A narrative summary of the results is presented.

Results

Five systematic reviews and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) that investigated methodologies for rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. None of the systematic reviews were of sufficient quality to allow firm conclusions to be made. Thus, the findings need to be treated with caution. There is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting rapid reviews. While a wide range of ‘shortcuts’ are used to make rapid reviews faster than a full systematic review, the included studies found little empirical evidence of their impact on the conclusions of either rapid or systematic reviews. There is some evidence from the included RCT (that had a low risk of bias) that rapid reviews may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence for decision makers.

Conclusions

Greater care needs to be taken in improving the transparency of the methods used in rapid review products. There is no evidence available to suggest that rapid reviews should not be done or that they are misleading in any way. We offer an improved definition of rapid reviews to guide future research as well as clearer guidance for policy and practice.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Related collections

Most cited references 21

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

John Lavis, Govin Permanand, Andrew D Oxman … (2009)

This article is part of a series written for people responsible for making decisions about health policies and programmes and for those who support these decision makers. Policy briefs are a relatively new approach to packaging research evidence for policymakers. The first step in a policy brief is to prioritise a policy issue. Once an issue is prioritised, the focus then turns to mobilising the full range of research evidence relevant to the various features of the issue. Drawing on available systematic reviews makes the process of mobilising evidence feasible in a way that would not otherwise be possible if individual relevant studies had to be identified and synthesised for every feature of the issue under consideration. In this article, we suggest questions that can be used to guide those preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking. These are: 1. Does the policy brief address a high-priority issue and describe the relevant context of the issue being addressed? 2. Does the policy brief describe the problem, costs and consequences of options to address the problem, and the key implementation considerations? 3. Does the policy brief employ systematic and transparent methods to identify, select, and assess synthesised research evidence? 4. Does the policy brief take quality, local applicability, and equity considerations into account when discussing the synthesised research evidence? 5. Does the policy brief employ a graded-entry format? 6. Was the policy brief reviewed for both scientific quality and system relevance?

0 comments Cited 82 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: not found

Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice?

David Hailey, Timothy Lathlean, Karen Cameron … (2008)

Rapid reviews are being produced with greater frequency by health technology assessment (HTA) agencies in response to increased pressure from end-user clinicians and policy-makers for rapid, evidence-based advice on health-care technologies. This comparative study examines the differences in methodologies and essential conclusions between rapid and full reviews on the same topic, with the aim of determining the validity of rapid reviews in the clinical context and making recommendations for their future application. Rapid reviews were located by Internet searching of international HTA agency websites, with any ambiguities resolved by further communication with the agencies. Comparator full systematic reviews were identified using the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination HTA database. Data on a number of review components were extracted using standardized data extraction tables, then analysed and reported narratively. Axiomatic differences between all the rapid and full reviews were identified; however, the essential conclusions of the rapid and full reviews did not differ extensively across the topics. For each of the four topics examined, it was clear that the scope of the rapid reviews was substantially narrower than that of full reviews. The methodology underpinning the rapid reviews was often inadequately described. 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.

0 comments Cited 63 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

Record: found
Abstract: found
Article: found

Is Open Access

Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews

Robin M Featherstone, Donna Dryden, Michelle Foisy … (2015)

Background Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs. Methods A systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented. Results A cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods. Conclusions RR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

0 comments Cited 57 times – based on 0 reviews      Review now

Bookmark

All references

Author and article information

Contributors

Michelle M. Haby: haby@unimelb.edu.au

Evelina Chapman: evelinachap@gmail.com

Rachel Clark: rachel.x.clark@phe.gov.uk

Jorge Barreto: jorgebarreto@fiocruz.br

Ludovic Reveiz: reveizl@paho.org

John N. Lavis: lavisj@mcmaster.ca

Journal

Journal ID (nlm-ta): Health Res Policy Syst

Journal ID (iso-abbrev): Health Res Policy Syst

Title: Health Research Policy and Systems

Publisher: BioMed Central (London )

ISSN (Electronic): 1478-4505

Publication date (Electronic): 25 November 2016

Publication date PMC-release: 25 November 2016

Publication date Collection: 2016

Volume: 14

Electronic Location Identifier: 83

Affiliations

[1 ]Department of Chemical and Biological Sciences, Universidad de Sonora, Hermosillo, Sonora Mexico

[2 ]Centre for Health Policy, Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, The University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria Australia

[3 ]Pan American Health Organization, Brasilia, DF Brazil

[4 ]London School of Hygiene and Tropical Medicine, London, United Kingdom

[5 ]Fundação Oswaldo Cruz, Diretoria de Brasília, Brasilia, Brazil

[6 ]Knowledge Management, Bioethics and Research, Pan American Health Organization, Washington, DC, United States of America

[7 ]McMaster Health Forum, Centre for Health Economics and Policy Analysis, Department of Clinical Epidemiology and Biostatistics, and Department of Political Science, McMaster University, Hamilton, Canada

[8 ]Department of Global Health and Population, Harvard T.H. Chan School of Public Health, Boston, MA United States of America

Article

Publisher ID: 155

DOI: 10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7

PMC ID: 5123411

PubMed ID: 27884208

SO-VID: df4b034f-8466-499c-afbb-b3c3e55612e1

License:

Open AccessThis article is distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided you give appropriate credit to the original author(s) and the source, provide a link to the Creative Commons license, and indicate if changes were made. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

History

Date received : 30 September 2016

Date accepted : 2 November 2016

Funding

Funded by: FundRef http://dx.doi.org/10.13039/501100006506, Ministério da Saúde;

Award ID: Cooperation agreement #47

Award Recipient : Michelle M. Haby

Funded by: Pan American Health Organization

Award ID: Cooperation agreement #47

Award Recipient : Michelle M. Haby

Custom metadata

ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care

Keywords: rapid reviews,knowledge translation,evidence-informed decision-making,research uptake,health policy

Data availability:

ScienceOpen disciplines: Health & Social care

Keywords: rapid reviews, knowledge translation, evidence-informed decision-making, research uptake, health policy

What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review

Read this article at

Abstract

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Electronic supplementary material

Related collections

International Journal of Applied Technology in Medical Sciences

Most cited references 21

SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking

Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice?

Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews

Author and article information

Contributors

Journal

Affiliations

Article

History

Funding

Categories

Custom metadata

Comments

Comment on this article

Similar content 219

Cited by 137

Most referenced authors 873