ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviewsDownload the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3N58CM3K

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Pediatrics, Department of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE)

Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews Open Access

Descriptions

Author or creator
Featherstone, Robin M.
Dryden, Donna M.
Foisy, Michelle
Guise, Jeanne-Marie
Mitchell, Matthew D.
Paynter, Robin A.
Robinson, Karen A.
Umscheid, Craig A.
Hartling, Lisa
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
Evidence-based practice
Knowledge synthesis
Systematic review
Health technology assessment
Review literature as topic
Rapid review
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
BACKGROUND: Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs. METHODS: A systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented. RESULTS: A cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods. CONCLUSIONS: RR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards.
Date created
2015/05/04
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3N58CM3K
License information
This is an Open Access article distributed...
Rights
This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.
Citation for previous publication
Featherstone, R. M., Dryden, D. M., Foisy, M., Guise, J. M., Mitchell, M. D., Paynter, R. A., ... & Hartling, L. (2015). Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), 50.
Source
Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2015-05-04T15:13:29.130+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (Portable Document Format)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 474482
Last modified: 2015:10:12 17:58:36-06:00
Filename: Featherstone_SysReviews_RapidReviews_2015.pdf
Original checksum: 06a2c2e3bcaf06ecc65e77b35c0ec35d
Copyright note: ?? 2015 Featherstone et al.; licensee BioMed Central.
Well formed: true
Valid: false
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=204892
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=204892
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=204892
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=204892
Status message: Invalid destination object offset=204892
File title: Abstract
File title: Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews
File author: Robin M Featherstone; Donna M Dryden; Michelle Foisy; Jeanne-Marie Guise; Matthew D Mitchell; Robin A Paynter; Karen A Robinson; Craig A Umscheid; Lisa Hartling
Page count: 8
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date