Methodological guidance for rapid reviews in healthcare: A scoping review

被引:12
|
作者
Speckemeier, Christian [1 ]
Niemann, Anja [1 ]
Wasem, Juergen [1 ]
Buchberger, Barbara [2 ]
Neusser, Silke [1 ]
机构
[1] Univ Duisburg Essen, Inst Healthcare Management & Res, Thea Leymann Str 9, D-45127 Essen, Germany
[2] Robert Koch Inst, Ctr Int Hlth Protect, Evidence Based Publ Hlth, ZIG2, Berlin, Germany
关键词
evidence synthesis; guideline; methodology; rapid review; recommendations; scoping review; SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS; TECHNOLOGY-ASSESSMENT; DECISIONS; FRAMEWORK; CONDUCT; DELPHI;
D O I
10.1002/jrsm.1555
中图分类号
Q [生物科学];
学科分类号
07 ; 0710 ; 09 ;
摘要
The aim of the present work was to identify published methodological guidance for rapid reviews (RRs) and to analyze the recommendations with regard to time-saving measures. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE in November 2020. In addition, a search based on Google Scholar and websites of governmental and non-governmental organizations was conducted. Literature screening was carried out by two researchers independently. A total of 34 publications were included. These describe 38 distinct RR types. The timeframe to complete the identified RR types ranges from 24 h to 6 months (mean time 2.2 months). For most RR types a specific research question (n = 21) and a prioritizing search (n = 25; preference for e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses) is employed. Different approaches such as reduced personnel in literature screening (n = 21) and data extraction (n = 21) are recommended. The majority of RR types include a bias assessment (n = 28) and suggest a narrative report focusing on safety and efficacy. The included RR types are heterogeneous in terms of completion time, considered domains and strategies to alter the standard systematic review methods. A rationale for the recommended shortcuts is rarely presented.
引用
收藏
页码:394 / 404
页数:11
相关论文
共 50 条
  • [1] Methodological quality, guidance, and tools in scoping reviews: a scoping review protocol
    Pollock, Danielle
    Tricco, Andrea C.
    Peters, Micah D. J.
    Mclnerney, Patricia A.
    Khalil, Hanan
    Godfrey, Christina M.
    Alexander, Lyndsay A.
    Munn, Zachary
    [J]. JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS, 2022, 20 (04) : 1098 - 1105
  • [2] Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
    Peters, Micah D. J.
    Marnie, Casey
    Tricco, Andrea C.
    Pollock, Danielle
    Munn, Zachary
    Alexander, Lyndsay
    McInerney, Patricia
    Godfrey, Christina M.
    Khalil, Hanan
    [J]. JBI EVIDENCE IMPLEMENTATION, 2021, 19 (01): : 3 - 10
  • [3] Updated methodological guidance for the conduct of scoping reviews
    Peters, Micah D. J.
    Marnie, Casey
    Tricco, Andrea C.
    Pollock, Danielle
    Munn, Zachary
    Alexander, Lyndsay
    McInerney, Patricia
    Godfrey, Christina M.
    Khalil, Hanan
    [J]. JBI EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS, 2020, 18 (10) : 2119 - 2126
  • [4] A scoping review on the methodological and reporting quality of scoping reviews in China
    Xue, Xinyu
    Tang, Xintong
    Liu, Shanshan
    Yu, Ting
    Chen, Zhonglan
    Chen, Ningsu
    Yu, Jiajie
    [J]. BMC MEDICAL RESEARCH METHODOLOGY, 2024, 24 (01)
  • [5] A scoping review on the methodological and reporting quality of scoping reviews in China
    Xinyu Xue
    Xintong Tang
    Shanshan Liu
    Ting Yu
    Zhonglan Chen
    Ningsu Chen
    Jiajie Yu
    [J]. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 24
  • [6] Risk of bias in overviews of reviews: a scoping review of methodological guidance and four-item checklist
    Ballard, Madeleine
    Montgomery, Paul
    [J]. RESEARCH SYNTHESIS METHODS, 2017, 8 (01) : 92 - 108
  • [7] A scoping review found increasing examples of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses and no methodological guidance
    Campbell, Fiona
    Weeks, Laura
    Booth, Andrew
    Kaunelis, David
    Smith, Andrea
    [J]. JOURNAL OF CLINICAL EPIDEMIOLOGY, 2019, 115 : 160 - 171
  • [8] Disinvestment in healthcare: a scoping review of systematic reviews
    Kamaruzaman, Hanin Farhana
    Grieve, Eleanor
    Wu, Olivia
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL JOURNAL OF TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN HEALTH CARE, 2022, 38 (01)
  • [9] What guidance is available for researchers conducting overviews of reviews of healthcare interventions? A scoping review and qualitative metasummary
    Pollock M.
    Fernandes R.M.
    Becker L.A.
    Featherstone R.
    Hartling L.
    [J]. Systematic Reviews, 5 (1)
  • [10] Scoping reviews and rapid reviews
    Sabiston, Catherine M.
    Vani, Madison
    de Jonge, Melissa
    Nesbitt, Amy
    [J]. INTERNATIONAL REVIEW OF SPORT AND EXERCISE PSYCHOLOGY, 2022, 15 (01) : 91 - 119