Warning: file_get_contents(https://eutils.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/eutils/elink.fcgi?dbfrom=pubmed&id=26377409
&cmd=llinks): Failed to open stream: HTTP request failed! HTTP/1.1 429 Too Many Requests
in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 215
Warning: imagejpeg(C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\phplern\26377409
.jpg): Failed to open stream: No such file or directory in C:\Inetpub\vhosts\kidney.de\httpdocs\pget.php on line 117 BMC+Med
2015 ; 13
(ä): 224
Nephropedia Template TP
gab.com Text
Twit Text FOAVip
Twit Text #
English Wikipedia
A scoping review of rapid review methods
#MMPMID26377409
Tricco AC
; Antony J
; Zarin W
; Strifler L
; Ghassemi M
; Ivory J
; Perrier L
; Hutton B
; Moher D
; Straus SE
BMC Med
2015[Sep]; 13
(ä): 224
PMID26377409
show ga
BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components
of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information
in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews
internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of
rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated,
compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review.
METHODS: MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review
producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion.
Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted
data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted. RESULTS: We
included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997
and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven
development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was
included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12
months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included
studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps
examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred
more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews
included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one
database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %),
having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %),
having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of
bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality
appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case
studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic
reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and
systematic reviews were congruent. CONCLUSIONS: Numerous rapid review approaches
were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of
reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid
reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted.
free
free
free
