Fit for purpose: Perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews

Systematic Reviews

Volumn 6, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Hartling, Lisa ^a   Guise, Jeanne Marie ^b   Hempel, Susanne ^c   Featherstone, Robin ^d   Mitchell, Matthew D ^e   Motu'apuaka, Makalapua L ^b   Robinson, Karen A ^f   Schoelles, Karen ^g   Totten, Annette ^h   Whitlock, Evelyn ^i,j   Wilt, Timothy J ^k   Anderson, Johanna ^b   Berliner, Elise ^l   Gozu, Aysegul ^l   Kato, Elisabeth ^l   Paynter, Robin ^b   Umscheid, Craig A ^m  

^a UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^b Portland VA Research Foundation   (United States)

^c RAND CORPORATION   (United States)

^d UNIVERSITY OF ALBERTA   (Canada)

^e UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

^f JOHNS HOPKINS UNIVERSITY SCHOOL OF MEDICINE   (United States)

^g ECRI INSTITUTE   (United States)

^h Pacific Northwest Evidencebased Practice Center   (United States)

ⁱ CENTER FOR HEALTH RESEARCH   (United States)

^j PATIENT CENTERED OUTCOMES RESEARCH INSTITUTE   (United States)

^k UNIVERSITY OF MINNESOTA   (United States)

^l AGENCY FOR HEALTHCARE RESEARCH AND QUALITY   (United States)

^m UNIVERSITY OF PENNSYLVANIA   (United States)

more..

Author keywords

Decision makers; End users; Interviews; Knowledge synthesis; Rapid reviews; Systematic reviews

Indexed keywords

ARTICLE; CITATION ANALYSIS; DECISION MAKING; HEALTH CARE; HEALTH CARE PERSONNEL; HEALTH INSURANCE; HUMAN; INTERVIEW; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; PRIORITY JOURNAL; SCIENTIST; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH CARE DELIVERY; LITERATURE; PROCEDURES; STANDARDS; TIME FACTOR;

DELIVERY OF HEALTH CARE; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HEALTH PERSONNEL; HUMANS; INSURANCE, HEALTH; INTERVIEWS AS TOPIC; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; TIME FACTORS;

EID: 85013130994     PISSN: None     EISSN: 20464053     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s13643-017-0425-7     Document Type: Article

References (27)

1. Higgins JP, Green S (editors). Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions Version 5.1. 0 [updated March 2011]. Cochrane Collaboration. 2011. Available from: https://www.handbook.cochrane.org.
2. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5(1):56.
3. Sampson M, Shojania KG, Garritty C, Horsley T, Ocampo M, Moher D. Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61(6):531-6.
4. Chandler J, Churchill R, Higgins JP, Lasserson T, Tovey D. Methodological standards for the conduct of near Cochrane Intervention Reviews: Cochrane Collaboration2013 December Contract No.: Version 2.3.
5. Hartling L, Guise J, Kato E, Anderson J, Aronson N, Belinson S et al. EPC Methods: An Exploration of Methods and Context for the Production of Rapid Reviews. Research White Paper..(Prepared by the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No 290-2012-00004-C) AHRQ Publication No 15-EHC008-EF Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; February 2015: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
6. Hartling L, Guise J-M, Kato E, Anderson J, Belinson S, Berliner E, et al. A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. J Clin Epidemiol. 2015;68(12):1451-62. e3.
7. Guise J-M, Chang C, Viswanathan M, Glick S, Treadwell J, Umscheid CA, et al. Systematic reviews of complex multicomponent health care interventions. Rockville: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US); 2014. www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
8. Morse JM, Field PA. Qualitative research methods for health professionals. 2nd ed. Thousand Oaks: SAGE Publications, Inc.; 1995.
9. Hartling L, Guise J, Hempel S, Featherstone R, Mitchell MD, Motu'apuaka ML et al. EPC Methods: AHRQ End User Perspectives of Rapid Reviews. AHRQ Publication No16-EHC014-EF Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; April 2016: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
10. Canadian Agency for Drugs in Technologies in Health. Acetylsalicylic acid for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis: an update of clinical evidence. CADTH; 2014. Available from: https://www.cadth.ca/acetylsalicylic-acid-venous-thromboembolism-prophylaxis-update-clinical-evidence.
11. ECRI Institute. Knee-length versus Thigh-length Compression Devices for Deep Venous Thrombosis. Plymouth Meeting, PA: ECRI Institute; 2012.
12. Mitchell MD, Umscheid CA. Intermittent pneumatic compression devices for venous thromboembolism prophylaxis. Philadelphia: University of Pennsylvania Health System Center for Evidence-based Practice; 2009.
13. Jayakumar KL, Lavenberg JA, Mitchell MD, Doshi JA, Leas B, Goldmann DR et al. Evidence synthesis activities of a hospital evidence-based practice center and impact on hospital decision making. J Hosp Med. 2016;11(3):185-92.
14. Sobieraj DM, Coleman CI, Tongbram V, Lee S, Colby J, Chen WT et al. Venous thromboembolism prophylaxis in orthopedic surgery. Comparative Effectiveness Review No. 49 (Prepared by the University of Connecticut/Hartford Hospital Evidence-based Practice Center under Contract No. 290-2007-10067-I.) AHRQ Publication No. 12-EHC020-EF. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality March 2012: www.effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/reports/final.cfm.
15. Danz MS, Hempel S, Lim Y-W, Shanman R, Motala A, Stockdale S et al. Incorporating evidence review into quality improvement: meeting the needs of innovators. BMJ Qual Saf. 2013;22(11):931-39.
16. Featherstone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M, Guise J-M, 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. System Rev. 2015;4:50. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4.
17. Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4(1):20.
18. Shea BJ, Hamel C, Wells GA, Bouter LM, Kristjansson E, Grimshaw J, et al. AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62(10):1013-20. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2008.10.009.
19. Dickersin K, Scherer R, Lefebvre C. Identifying relevant studies for systematic reviews. BMJ. 1994;309(6964):1286.
20. Giustini D, Boulos MNK. Google Scholar is not enough to be used alone for systematic reviews. Online J Public Health Inform. 2013;5(2):214.
21. Moher D, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, Liberati A. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol. 2000;53(9):964-72.
22. Selph SS, Ginsburg AD, Chou R. Impact of contacting study authors to obtain additional data for systematic reviews: diagnostic accuracy studies for hepatic fibrosis. System Rev. 2014;3(1):1-9.
23. Bushman BJ, Wells GL. Narrative impressions of literature: the availability bias and the corrective properties of meta-analytic approaches. Personal Soc Psychol Bull. 2001;27(9):1123-30.
24. Horsley T, Dingwall O, Sampson M. Checking reference lists to find additional studies for systematic reviews. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2011, Issue 8 Art No: MR000026. doi: 10.1002/14651858.MR000026.pub2. 2011.
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(02):133-9.
26. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg. 2008;78(11):1037-40.
27. Booth A, Wright K, Outhwaite H. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination databases: value, content, and developments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2010;26(4):470-2.