How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously?

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 4, Issue 1, 2015, Pages

  Tsertsvadze, Alexander ^a   Chen, Yen Fu ^a   Moher, David ^b   Sutcliffe, Paul ^a   McCarthy, Noel ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF WARWICK   (United Kingdom)

^b OTTAWA HOSPITAL RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (Canada)

Author keywords

Rapid reviews; Risk of bias; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATABASE; CLINICAL RESEARCH; DECISION MAKING; ELECTRONIC MEDICAL RECORD; EVIDENCE BASED PRACTICE; HUMAN; INFORMATION PROCESSING; NOTE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; PUBLICATION; PUBLISHING; QUALITATIVE RESEARCH; SYSTEMATIC REVIEW; ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; BIOMEDICAL TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT; COST BENEFIT ANALYSIS; EPIDEMIC; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; LITERATURE; METHODOLOGY;

ADMINISTRATIVE PERSONNEL; COST-BENEFIT ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; DISEASE OUTBREAKS; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT, BIOMEDICAL;

EID: 84946848673     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-015-0147-7     Document Type: Note

References (57)

1. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376-80.
2. Mulrow CD. Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6954):597-9.
3. Higgins JP, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Wiley Online Library. 2008.
4. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-10.
5. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-56.
6. Featherstone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M, Guise JM, Mitchell MD, Paynter RA, et al. Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Syst Rev. 2015;4:50. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4.
7. Hopman JK Z, Edrees H, Allen T, Allegranzi B. WHO Guideline and systematic review on hand hygiene and the use of chlorine in the context of Ebola. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2015.
8. WHO/UNICEF/WFP. Nutritional care of children and adults with Ebola virus disease in treatment centres. Interim guideline. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2014.
9. Gagnon MP. Hospital-based health technology assessment: developments to date. Pharmacoeconomics. 2014;32(9):819-24. doi: 10.1007/s40273-014-0185-3.
10. Grama A, Gupta A, Karypis G, Kumar V. Introduction to parallel computing (2nd edition). Essex: Pearson; 2003.
11. O'Mara-Eves A, Thomas J, McNaught J, Miwa M, Ananiadou S. Using text mining for study identification in systematic reviews: a systematic review of current approaches. Syst Rev. 2015;4:5. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-5.
12. Tsafnat G, Glasziou P, Choong MK, Dunn A, Galgani F, Coiera E. Systematic review automation technologies. Syst Rev. 2014;3:74. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-3-74.
13. Elliott J, Sim I, Thomas J, Owens N, Dooley G, Riis J, et al. CochraneTech: technology and the future of systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2014;9:Ed000091. doi: 10.1002/14651858.ed000091.
14. Marshall C. Systematic Review (SR) toolbox 2015. http://systematicreviewtools.com/. Accessed 05 November 2015.
15. Balk EM, Chung M, Chen ML, Trikalinos TA, Kong Win Chang L. Assessing the accuracy of google translate to allow data extraction from trials published in non-english languages. Rockville (MD). 2013. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?productid=1386&pageaction=displayproduct. Accessed on 5 November 2015.
16. Wallace BC, Trikalinos TA, Lau J, Brodley C, Schmid CH. Semi-automated screening of biomedical citations for systematic reviews. BMC Bioinformatics. 2010;11:55. doi: 10.1186/1471-2105-11-55.
17. Miwa M, Thomas J, O'Mara-Eves A, Ananiadou S. Reducing systematic review workload through certainty-based screening. J Biomed Inform. 2014;51:242-53. doi: 10.1016/j.jbi.2014.06.005.
18. Elliott JH, Turner T, Clavisi O, Thomas J, Higgins JP, Mavergames C, et al. Living systematic reviews: an emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLoS Med. 2014;11(2):e1001603. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1001603.
19. Jonnalagadda SR, Goyal P, Huffman MD. Automating data extraction in systematic reviews: a systematic review. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):78. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0066-7.
20. Marshall IJ, Kuiper J, Wallace BC. RobotReviewer: evaluation of a system for automatically assessing bias in clinical trials. JAMIA. 2015. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocv044.
21. Khangura S, Polisena J, Clifford TJ, Farrah K, Kamel C. Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30(1):20-7. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000664.
22. Harker J, Kleijnen J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10(4):397-410. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x.
23. Schunemann HJ, Moja L. Reviews: rapid! rapid! rapid!...and systematic. Syst Rev. 2015;4:4. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-4-4.
24. Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E, Anderson J, Aronson N, Belinson S, et al. EPC methods: an exploration of methods and context for the production of rapid reviews. Rockville (MD). 2015. http://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/index.cfm/search-for-guides-reviews-and-reports/?productid=2047&pageaction=displayproduct. Accessed on 5 November 2015.
25. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(2):133-9. doi: 10.1017/s0266462308080185.
26. Polisena J, Garritty C, Kamel C, Stevens A, Abou-Setta AM. Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods. Syst Rev. 2015;4:26. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6.
27. Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, Egger M. Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007;2:MR000010. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000010.pub3.
28. Egger M, Smith GD. Bias in location and selection of studies. BMJ. 1998;316(7124):61-6.
29. Juni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. Int J Epidemiol. 2002;31(1):115-23.
30. Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, et al. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(9):964-72.
31. Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(41):1-90.
32. Pham B, Klassen TP, Lawson ML, Moher D. Language of publication restrictions in systematic reviews gave different results depending on whether the intervention was conventional or complementary. J Clin Epidemiol. 2005;58(8):769-76.
33. Counsell C. Formulating questions and locating primary studies for inclusion in systematic reviews. Ann Intern Med. 1997;127(5):380-7.
34. Berlin JA. Does blinding of readers affect the results of meta-analyses? University of Pennsylvania Meta-analysis Blinding Study Group. Lancet. 1997;350(9072):185-6.
35. Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Stat Med. 2002;21(11):1635-40. doi: 10.1002/sim.1190.
36. Buscemi N, Hartling L, Vandermeer B, Tjosvold L, Klassen TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59(7):697-703. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2005.11.010.
37. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1-76.
38. Moher D, Pham B, Jones A, Cook DJ, Jadad AR, Moher M, et al. Does quality of reports of randomised trials affect estimates of intervention efficacy reported in meta-analyses? Lancet. 1998;352(9128):609-13. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(98)01085-X.
39. Juni P, Altman DG, Egger M. Systematic reviews in health care: assessing the quality of controlled clinical trials. BMJ. 2001;323(7303):42-6.
40. Sampson M, Barrowman NJ, Moher D, Klassen TP, Pham B, Platt R, et al. Should meta-analysts search Embase in addition to Medline? J Clin Epidemiol. 2003;56(10):943-55.
41. Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: rapid versus exhaustive searches. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19(4):591-603.
42. Cameron A, Watt A, Lathlean T, Sturm L. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in Health Technology Assessment: ASERNIP-S Report No. 60. Adelaide, South Australia: 2007. https://www.surgeons.org/media/297941/rapidvsfull2007_systematicreview.pdf. Accessed on 5 November 2015.
43. Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, Schmid CH, Dahabreh IJ. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(9):1076-84. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.017.
44. Preston L, Carroll C, Gardois P, Paisley S, Kaltenthaler E. Improving search efficiency for systematic reviews of diagnostic test accuracy: an exploratory study to assess the viability of limiting to MEDLINE, EMBASE and reference checking. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):82. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0074-7.
45. Royle P, Waugh N. Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessment reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(34):iii. ix-x, 1-51.
46. Oxman AD, Schunemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:26. doi: 10.1186/1478-4505-4-26.
47. Morrison A, Polisena J, Husereau D, Moulton K, Clark M, Fiander M, et al. The effect of English-language restriction on systematic review-based meta-analyses: a systematic review of empirical studies. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(2):138-44. doi: 10.1017/S0266462312000086.
48. Galandi D, Schwarzer G, Antes G. The demise of the randomised controlled trial: bibliometric study of the German-language health care literature, 1948 to 2004. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2006;6:30. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-6-30.
49. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x.
50. Scott A, Harstall C. Utilizing diverse HTA products in the Alberta Health Technologies Decision Process: Work in Progress. 2012. http://www.ihe.ca/publications/utilizing-diverse-hta-products-in-the-alberta-health-technologies-decision-process-work-in-progress. Accessed on 5 November 2015.
51. Moher D, Tsertsvadze A. Systematic reviews: when is an update an update? Lancet. 2006;367(9514):881-3. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(06)68358-X.
52. Ahmadzai N, Newberry SJ, Maglione MA, Tsertsvadze A, Ansari MT, Hempel S, et al. A surveillance system to assess the need for updating systematic reviews. Syst Rev. 2013;2:104. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-2-104.
53. Cochrane Innovations. Cochrane response-the new rapid review from Cochrane. 2014. http://innovations.cochrane.org/response. Accessed on 5 November 2015.
54. Wilson MG, Lavis JN, Gauvin FP. Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue. Syst Rev. 2015;4:25. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0009-3.
55. Webber J. Rapid Review Summit: Then Now and in the Future. Vancouver, Biritish Columbia February 3 and 4, 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/pdf/RR%20Summit_FINAL_Report.pdf. Accessed on 5 November 2015.
56. Cochrane Collaboration. The EMBASE screening project: six months old and going strong. 2014. http://community.cochrane.org/news/news-events/current-news/embase-screening-project-six-months-old-and-going-strong. Accessed on 5 November 2015.
57. Agency for HealthCare Research and Quality (AHRQ). Systematic Review Data Repository (SRDR). 2015. http://srdr.ahrq.gov/. Accessed on 5 November 2015.