Redefining rapid reviews: A flexible framework for restricted systematic reviews

BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine

Volumn 23, Issue 6, 2018, Pages 201-203

  Plüddemann, Annette ^a   Aronson, Jeffrey K ^a   Onakpoya, Igho ^a   Heneghan, Carl ^a   Mahtani, Kamal R ^a  

^a UNIVERSITY OF OXFORD   (United Kingdom)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EVIDENCE BASED MEDICINE; HUMAN; METHODOLOGY; NOMENCLATURE;

EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE; HUMANS; RESEARCH DESIGN; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS AS TOPIC; TERMINOLOGY AS TOPIC;

EID: 85056956729     PISSN: 2515446X     EISSN: 25154478     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110990     Document Type: Review

References (11)

1. Armoiry X, Sturt J, Phelps EE, et al. Digital clinical communication for families and caregivers of children or young people with short-or longterm conditions: rapid review. J Med Internet Res 2018; 20: e5
2. Visram S, Cheetham M, Riby DM, et al. Consumption of energy drinks by children and young people: A rapid review examining evidence of physical effects and consumer attitudes. BMJ Open 2016; 6: e010380
3. Kaltenthaler E, Cooper K, Pandor A, et al. The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies. BMC Med Res Methodol 2016; 16: 108
4. NICE. National Institute for Health and Care Excellence: Dementia, disability and frailty in later life -mid-life approaches to delay or prevent onset: NICE guideline, 2015
5. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med 2015; 13: 224
6. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg 2008; 78: 1037-40
7. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 70: 61-7
8. Taylor-Phillips S, Geppert J, Stinton C, et al. Comparison of a full systematic review versus rapid review approaches to assess a newborn screening test for tyrosinemia type 1. Res Synth Methods 2017; 8: 475-84
9. OCEBM Levels of Evidence Working Group. The Oxford Levels of Evidence 2. Oxford Centre for Evidence-Based Medicine. https://www.cebm.net/index. Aspx? o=5653
10. Wagner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Greimel J, et al. Trading certainty for speed -how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: An international survey. BMC Med Res Methodol 2017; 17: 121
11. Møller MH, Ioannidis JPA, Darmon M. Are systematic reviews and meta-Analyses still useful research? We are not sure. Intensive Care Med 2018; 44: 518-20