Trading certainty for speed - How much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: An international survey

BMC Medical Research Methodology

Volumn 17, Issue 1, 2017, Pages

  Wagner, Gernot ^a   Nussbaumer Streit, Barbara ^a   Greimel, Judith ^b   Ciapponi, Agustín ^c   Gartlehner, Gerald ^a,d  

^a DANUBE UNIVERSITY KREMS   (Austria)

^b UNIVERSITY OF HOHENHEIM   (Germany)

^c INSTITUTE FOR CLINICAL EFFECTIVENESS AND HEALTH POLICY   (Argentina)

^d RTI INTERNATIONAL   (United States)

Author keywords

Decision making; Decisionmaker; Guideline developer; Rapid review; Systematic review; Uncertainty

Indexed keywords

ADULT; AGED; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMAN; LITERATURE; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINE; QUESTIONNAIRE; REPRODUCIBILITY; UNCERTAINTY; YOUNG ADULT;

ADULT; AGED; DECISION MAKING; EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; FEMALE; HUMANS; MALE; MIDDLE AGED; PRACTICE GUIDELINES AS TOPIC; REPRODUCIBILITY OF RESULTS; REVIEW LITERATURE AS TOPIC; SURVEYS AND QUESTIONNAIRES; UNCERTAINTY; YOUNG ADULT;

EID: 85027395957     PISSN: None     EISSN: 14712288     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1186/s12874-017-0406-5     Document Type: Article

References (26)

1. Murthy L, Shepperd S, Clarke MJ, Garner SE, Lavis JN, Perrier L, Roberts NW, Straus SE. Interventions to improve the use of systematic reviews in decision-making by health system managers, policy makers and clinicians. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012(9):CD009401.
2. Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126(5):376-80.
3. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.
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.
5. Abou-Setta AM, Jeyaraman MM, Attia A, Al-Inany HG, Ferri M, Ansari MT, Garritty CM, Bond K, Norris SL. Methods for developing evidence reviews in short periods of time: a scoping review. PLoS One. 2016;11(12):e0165903.
6. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, Perrier L, Hutton B, Moher D, Straus SE. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224.
7. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. 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. Health Res Policy Syst. 2016;14(1):83.
8. Featherstone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M, Guise JM, Mitchell MD, Paynter RA, Robinson KA, Umscheid CA, Hartling L. Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Syst Rev. 2015;4:50.
9. Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E, Anderson J, Belinson S, Berliner E, Dryden DM, Featherstone R, Mitchell MD, Motu'apuaka M, 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. e1453
10. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, Hutton B, Moher D, Sherifali D, Straus SE. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol. 2016;70:61-7.
11. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, Facey K, Hailey D, Norderhaug I, Maddern G. 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.
12. Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ. Defining rapid reviews: a modified delphi consensus approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):265-75.
13. 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.
14. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, Facey K, Hailey D, Norderhaug I, Maddern G. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg. 2008;78(11):1037-40.
15. Han PKJ, Klein WMP, Arora NK. Varieties of uncertainty in health care: a conceptual taxonomy. Med Dec Making. 2011;31(6):828-38.
16. Eysenbach G. Improving the quality of web surveys: the checklist for reporting results of internet E-surveys (CHERRIES). J Med Internet Res. 2004;6(3):e34.
17. Dillman DA, Tortora RD, Bowker D. Principles for constructing web surveys. Pullman, Washington: SESRC Technical Report; 1998. p. 98-50.
18. Patton M. Qualitative evaluation and research methods. Beverly Hills: Sage.
19. Kulkarni AV, Aziz B, Shams I, Busse JW. Comparisons of citations in web of science, Scopus, and Google scholar for articles published in general medical journals. JAMA. 2009;302(10):1092-6.
20. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holestein 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.
21. van Enst WA, Scholten RJ, Whiting P, Zwinderman AH, Hooft L. Meta-epidemiologic analysis indicates that MEDLINE searches are sufficient for diagnostic test accuracy systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2014;67(11):1192-9.
22. Bayliss SE, Davenport CF, Pennant ME. Where and how to search for information on the effectiveness of public health interventions - a case study for prevention of cardiovascular disease. Health Inf Libr J. 2014;31(4):303-13.
23. 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.
24. Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):127.
25. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Klerings I, Wagner G, Titscher V, Gartlehner G. Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches for rapid reviews: protocol of a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic study. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):197.
26. Garritty C, Stevens A, Gartlehner G, King V, Kamel C. Cochrane rapid reviews methods group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):184.