Downloaded 51 times
![Limiting the search (report accurately)
● Limiting terms
○ Most potentially serious way to introduce bias. If working from a prior search, may eliminate terms if validated
for sensitivity & specificity of retrieval. Validating terms can be time consuming in a complex search strategy.
○ Can make use of a term more specific by limiting MeSH heading to major [MAJR] or limiting textwords to when
they appear in title/abstract [TIAB] or title [TI].
● Databases
○ MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE, or … ?
● Handsearching
○ Grey literature sources, table of contents, number of journals selected for custom review, eliminate document
types such as theses, textbooks, etc.
● Dates
○ Be thoughtful. Don’t limit dates if this will exclude important developments in the topic being examined.
● Language
○ If your topic was invented, discovered, or is especially common in a non-English speaking country, you probably
need to include that language in the review.](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/rapidreviews-180325031939/75/Rapid-Reviews-101-20-2048.jpg)
![Protocol Examples
*Rapid Review Protocol - Interventions to promote healthy eating choices when dining out: A systematic
review of reviews
<http://www.behaviourworksaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Rapid-Review-Protocol.pdf>
*Rapid Review protocol for Post Operative Pain Outcome Measures Study (POPOS)
<http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1070>
*Rashek Kazi, Bryan Carroll, Andrea Ketchum. The quantification of patient pain: a rapid review of four
commonly employed rating scales. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091058 Available from:
<http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018091058> [PROSPERO:
<https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/>]
Protocol for a Rapid Evidence Review of Traditional and Complementary Medicine for People with Diabetes
Receiving Palliative or End-of-Life Care
<https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8e2b/f4b9287ab7a2f5a9b6ce3c44d1df71d1acda.pdf>](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/rapidreviews-180325031939/75/Rapid-Reviews-101-44-2048.jpg)
![Rubrics
● Questions
○ PICO [PICO(T), PICO(S), PICO(C), PICO(TS),
PIO, PICo]
○ BeHEMoTh
○ CMO / CIMO
○ ECLIPS(E)
○ SPICE
○ SPIDER
○ https://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/info/639/infor
mation_specialists/1500/search_concept_too
ls
● Question Types
○ DEPT (Diagnosis, Etiology, Prognosis,
Treatment)
● Data & Quality
○ PRISMA http://www.prisma-statement.org/
○ GRADE http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/
○ AMSTAR https://amstar.ca/
● Searching
○ FRIAR / SECT
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfa/mlagui
de/free/quickgd.pdf
○ MEMORABLE
http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfa/pro/co
urses/memorable.html
● Bias
○ Cochrane
http://methods.cochrane.org/bias/assessing-
risk-bias-included-studies
○ ROBINS-I / RoB
https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/
○ McHARM
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91
433/table/cerguidebias.t7/](https://image.slidesharecdn.com/rapidreviews-180325031939/75/Rapid-Reviews-101-48-2048.jpg)
Rapid Reviews 101
The document discusses rapid reviews, a type of knowledge synthesis that simplifies the systematic review process to produce information quickly. It explains the differences between rapid and traditional systematic reviews, including variations in scope, rigor, and time efficiency, and offers guidelines and resources for conducting rapid reviews. Key considerations include transparency, bias avoidance, and the careful selection of literature and methodologies.
More Related Content
Similar to Rapid Reviews 101
More from University of Michigan Taubman Health Sciences Library
Rapid Reviews 101
- 1. Rapid Reviews 101 PFAnderson, Emerging Technologies Informationist, Taubman Health Sciences Library March 24, 2018
- 2. Here’s What’s Coming AboutRapid Reviews Getting Organized / Step by Step Standards & Guidelines Examples & Protocols Resources
- 3.
- 4. Rapid Review: Definition “Aformal definition for a rapid review does not exist. As such, we used the following working definition, ‘a rapid review is a type of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a short period of time’.” Andrea C. Tricco, Jesmin Antony, Wasifa Zarin, Lisa Strifler, Marco Ghassemi, John Ivory, Laure Perrier, Brian Hutton, David Moher, and Sharon E. Straus. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015; 13: 224. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574114/
- 5. Basics of ReviewStructure Question Search Selection Appraisal Summarize & Report Image source: http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/inde x.php/Software_for_system atic_reviewing
- 6. Rapid Reviews inContext: Confidence Narrative Scoping Rapid Systematic Meta-analysis Others ……... Image credit: HLWiki International: Rapid Reviews http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Rapid_reviews (Dean Giustini, 9 March 2018) http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/File:Evidence-review-types.jpg
- 7. Rapid Reviews inContext: More Types ● Comparative effectiveness reviews ● Critical review ● Effectiveness reviews ● Health technology assessment ● Literature review ● Mapping review / Systematic map Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi: 10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x HLWiki International: Rapid Reviews http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Rapid_reviews (Dean Giustini, 9 March 2018) ● Meta-analysis ● Mixed methods / Mixed studies ● Multi-arm systematic review ● Overview ● Qualitative systematic review / qualitative evidence synthesis ● Rapid review ● Review of reviews ● Scoping review / Quick scoping review ● State-of-the-art review ● Systematic review ● Systematic search and review ● Systematized review ● Umbrella review
- 8. Rapid Reviews inContext: Time “Traditional literature reviews do not apply additional statistical methods to the materials found. Systematic reviews take exponentially more time to do, from the search strategy creation itself, to going through each retrieved citation in duplicate or triplicate, to analyzing the data from the included articles.” Melissa L. Rethlefsen. “I Want To Do a Systematic Review.” https://liblog.mayo.edu/2013/05/01/i-want-to-do-a-systematic-review/
- 9. Rapid Reviews inContext: Time ● Systematic review ○ Recommended time = 12 months ○ Average or typical time = 23 months ○ Can range up to several years ● Rapid review ○ Average or typical time = 6 months ○ Can range from 1 month to a year
- 10. Rapid Reviews AreDifferent … How? Elements standard in systematic reviews that may be altered in rapid reviews ● SCOPE (type/number of questions; number of studies included) ● COMPREHENSIVENESS (search - databases, hand searching, date, setting, languages; study types; text analysis) ● RIGOR (Eliminate dual study selection and/or data extraction; peer review) ● SYNTHESIS (Limit or eliminate risk of bias testing, quality assessment of studies, quality assessment of evidence; analysis reduced to either quantitative or qualitative) Roberfroid D, Fairon N, San Miguel L, Paulus D. Method — Rapid Reviews. KCE (Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre), KCE Process Notes, 2017. https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Rapid_Review_0_0.pdf
- 11. Overview of RapidReviews (Tricco et al) AC Tricco et al.. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015; 13: 224. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574114/
- 12.
- 13. Questions to askyourself before you start What is your topic? What is your question? Why this question? What is the goal? Do you have the people and resources needed? How will you include stakeholders’ insights? What data do you need to report? What data are you planning to capture? How? How do you plan to minimize and assess bias in the question, team, process, data, etc? When do you call it “done” or “good enough”? How will you decide? Image credit: https://openclipart.org/detail/252546/prismatic-question-mark-fractal-5-no-background
- 14. #1 TIP: TRANSPARENCY RULES!!! “Lesson 1:The notion of a rapid-review is ill-defined. However, introducing one methodology isn’t necessarily appropriate. What is important is transparency behind the process.” Rapid versus systematic reviews – part 2 https://blog.tripdatabase.com/2012/04/24/rapid -versus-systematic-reviews-part-2/ Image source: https://openclipart.org/detail/13842/beverage-glass-tumbler
- 15. #1 TIP: TRANSPARENCY RULES!!! Keep detailednotes about your process Keep records of search strategies, including versions, and changes Don’t get confused by test runs of data analysis from draft versions of search; wait until search is final, and clearly label the final data set for analysis. Include file naming conventions that include metadata such as date of file or search. Image source: https://openclipart.org/detail/182192/papillon-transparent
- 16. #2 TIP: AVOIDBIAS!!! Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool http://methods.cochrane.org/bias/assessing-risk -bias-included-studies ● Selection bias ● Performance bias ● Detection bias ● Attrition bias ● Reporting bias ● Other bias Image source: Higgins JPT et al. The Cochrane Collaboration’s tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ 2011; 343 doi: https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.d5928 (Published 18 October 2011)
- 17. #3 TIP: Ask Great Questions Imagesource: PICO Framework https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmedhealth/PMHT0029906/
- 18.
- 19. Limiting the searchmay introduce bias “Systematic reviews may be compromised by selective inclusion and reporting of outcomes and analyses. Selective inclusion occurs when there are multiple effect estimates in a trial report that could be included in a particular meta-analysis (e.g. from multiple measurement scales and time points) and the choice of effect estimate to include in the meta-analysis is based on the results (e.g. statistical significance, magnitude or direction of effect). Selective reporting occurs when the reporting of a subset of outcomes and analyses in the systematic review is based on the results (e.g. a protocol-defined outcome is omitted from the published systematic review).” (Page et al, 2014, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25271098) “Do bodies of evidence that are based on abbreviated literature searches lead to different conclusions about benefits and harms of interventions compared with bodies of evidence that are based on comprehensive, systematic literature searches?” (Nussbaumer-Streit et al, 2016, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5120483/)
- 20. Limiting the search(report accurately) ● Limiting terms ○ Most potentially serious way to introduce bias. If working from a prior search, may eliminate terms if validated for sensitivity & specificity of retrieval. Validating terms can be time consuming in a complex search strategy. ○ Can make use of a term more specific by limiting MeSH heading to major [MAJR] or limiting textwords to when they appear in title/abstract [TIAB] or title [TI]. ● Databases ○ MEDLINE, COCHRANE, EMBASE, or … ? ● Handsearching ○ Grey literature sources, table of contents, number of journals selected for custom review, eliminate document types such as theses, textbooks, etc. ● Dates ○ Be thoughtful. Don’t limit dates if this will exclude important developments in the topic being examined. ● Language ○ If your topic was invented, discovered, or is especially common in a non-English speaking country, you probably need to include that language in the review.
- 21. Limiting the search(report accurately) ● Setting ● Study types ● Publication types ● Methodologies ● Age limits ● Geographic area Image credit(s): https://openclipart.org/detail/194606/zone-search-pattern | https://openclipart.org/detail/194604/line-search-pattern | https://openclipart.org/detail/194603/grid-search-pattern | https://openclipart.org/detail/224996/spiral-search-pattern
- 22.
- 23. Example Protocol Elements& Structure Opening content ● Title ● Team & Institution ● Summary, Background, Purpose, Goals, Why Body ● Question / Topic / Definitions of Terms ● Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria ● Risk of bias assessment for this study ● Outputs Methods ● Search ● Data screening ● Quality assessment ● Bias assessment/evaluation in data ● Data extraction ● Synthesis Closing content ● Stakeholders ● Funding & COI ● Additional or supporting materials ● Timeline
- 24. Sentinel (NOT Seminal)Articles: Selection Seminal Articles ● Highly significant ● Influential ● Important ● By a leader in defining the research in the field; often the first on a particular topic, method, or concept ● Key studies. Also called: pivotal research, landmark study, classic Sentinel Articles ● On topic, not broader or narrower ● Well-indexed with appropriate terms ● Representative of citations that would be retrieved by a well-done search ● Each sentinel article must represent ALL desired concepts in the search ● Articles selected must meet ALL inclusion and exclusion criteria.
- 25. Sentinel (NOT Seminal)Articles: Uses Term generation process ● Variant terms & related concepts found in sentinel articles are likely to include terms & concepts that might have been otherwise missed ● Look here: ○ Titles ○ Abstracts ○ Keywords ○ Cataloging terms (ie. MeSH) ○ Bibliographies Search validation ● Can help to minimize accidental bias in the search strategy ● Can draw attention to gaps in the search which otherwise might not become apparent until after publication
- 26. Inclusion / ExclusionCriteria INCLUSION CRITERIA ● Required; reduces confounding variables ● Provide rationale or justification for these criteria ● Examples: ○ Dates ○ Language ○ Types of participants / methodologies ○ Type of analysis ○ Context or location ○ Outcome measures SEE: Meline T. Selecting Studies for Systematic Review: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders 2006 33:21–27. https://www.asha.org/uploadedfiles/asha/publications/cicsd/2006sselectingstudiesforsystematicreview.pdf Image credit: https://openclipart.org/detail/169757/check-and-cross-marks EXCLUSION CRITERIA ● Makes sample or subject ineligible ● Provide rationale or justification for these criteria ● Examples: ○ Publication type / article type ○ Out of scope, lack of diagnosis, ineligible for treatment proposed ○ Unclear or mixed population ○ Reverse of specific inclusion criteria ○ Outcomes/population/methods not reported in sufficient detail
- 27. Screening & InterraterReliability (Simplified) Step 0: Calibration & interrater reliability tuning ● Receive blinded dataset from search. Dataset should include only the title, abstract, and unique identifier. Abstract may be truncated as delivered from the database ● Test initial sample (~50?) of articles with title/abstract screening with both screeners, independently. ● From the title and/or abstract (as exported from the database), are you able to determine whether an articles matches inclusion/exclusion criteria, and should be selected or discarded? ● Both screeners meet to compare decisions, review inclusion/exclusion criteria, determine criteria for reaching consensus, decide whether to revise methods or move forward. Step 1: Title & Abstract screening Step 2: Full article screening applied to articles remaining after Step 1 screening Step 3: Request clarifying information from the original authors for final inclusion/exclusion decision regarding articles remaining from Step 2 screening for which doubt remains or for which there is a lack of consensus between screeners.
- 28. Data Extraction /Abstraction For final set of included articles, review each article for metadata, quality criteria, relevant methodology details, as well as specific data regarding the inclusion criteria, and other items of interest. Data is recorded in a form, template, spreadsheet, or other tool to allow comparison between the included studies and support synthesis across the final dataset.
- 29. Data Extraction / Abstraction:Simple Example Appendix 2: Example data extraction form for systematic reviews. FROM: Effects of a demand-led evidence briefing service on the uptake and use of research evidence by commissioners of health services: a controlled before-and-after study. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK424005/
- 30. Data Extraction /Abstraction: Templates Cochrane ● Training: ○ Data collection forms for intervention reviews http://training.cochrane.org/resource/data-collection-forms-intervention-reviews ○ Example file: http://training.cochrane.org/sites/training.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/resources/downloadable_resources/English/Collecting %20data%20-%20form%20for%20RCTs%20and%20non-RCTs.doc ● Airways: http://airways.cochrane.org/sites/airways.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/Data%20collection%20form%20for%20in tervention%20reviews%20for%20RCTs%20and%20non-RCTs.doc ● Cochrane Consumers & Communication Review Group http://cccrg.cochrane.org/sites/cccrg.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/det_2015_revised_final_june_20_2016_nov_2 9_revised.doc ● Cystic Fibrosis and Genetic Disorders: http://cfgd.cochrane.org/sites/cfgd.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/Study%20selection%20%26%20%20extraction% 20form%20RM5.doc ● Public Health Group: https://ph.cochrane.org/sites/ph.cochrane.org/files/public/uploads/CPHG%20Data%20extraction%20template_0.docx
- 31. Data Extraction /Abstraction: Tools Specialty Software ● Abstrackr http://abstrackr.cebm.brown.edu/account/login ● Covidence https://www.covidence.org/ ● DistillerSR https://www.evidencepartners.com/products/distillersr-systematic-review-software/ ● RevMan http://community.cochrane.org/tools/review-production-tools/revman-5 Software for systematic reviewing http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Software_for_systematic_reviewing SR Toolbox: http://systematicreviewtools.com/index.php
- 32. Standards & Guidelines forRapid Reviews
- 33. Standards for Reviews:Cochrane & Campbell ● Cochrane http://methods.cochrane.org/rapidreviews/welcome ○ Cochrane Handbook http://training.cochrane.org/handbook ○ Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) http://methods.cochrane.org/mecir ○ MECIR Manual http://community.cochrane.org/mecir-manual ● Campbell https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/ ○ Writing a Campbell Review https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/writing-a-campbell-systematic-revie w.html ○ MECCIR (Methodological Expectations of Campbell Collaboration Intervention Reviews) https://www.campbellcollaboration.org/mec2ir.html
- 34. Standards for (Rapid)Reviews: PRISMA PRISMA <http://prisma-statement.org/> ● PRISMA Checklist: <http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/Checklist.aspx> <http://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA%202009%20checklist.pdf> Extensions ● Available: PRISMA for Abstracts, Equity, Harms (for reviews including Harm outcomes), Individual Patient Data, Network Meta-Analyses, Protocols, Diagnostic Test Accuracy ● Extensions in development: PRISMA for Scoping Reviews, Children, Protocols for Children. Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies (Protocol). Adrienne Stevens, Chantelle Garritty, Mona Hersi, David Moher <http://www.equator-network.org/wp-content/uploads/2018/02/PRISMA-RR-protocol.pdf>
- 35. Standards for (Rapid) Reviews: PRISMA FlowDiagram: <http://prisma-statement.org/prismastatement/flowdia gram.aspx> <http://prisma-statement.org/documents/PRISMA%2 02009%20flow%20diagram.pdf> Flow Diagram Generator: <http://prisma.thetacollaborative.ca/>
- 36. Standards for RapidReviews: NCCMT NCCMT/Maureen Dobbins: ● Guidebook: <http://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/01/ce4c0813b3639ccd87bb6e5ad716df1442091 09e.pdf> ● citation: <http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308> ● about: <http://www.nccmt.ca/capacity-development/rapid-review-guidebook> ● summary: <http://www.nccmt.ca/knowledge-repositories/search/308> ● webinar: <http://www.nccmt.ca/capacity-development/webinars/previous-webinars> ● recording: <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Do9eQPumUmw&t=3s> ● slides: <https://www.slideshare.net/NCCMT/spotlight-webinar-rapid-review-guidebook-89091504> ● supporting tools: <https://www.slideshare.net/NCCMT/rapid-review-guidebook-links-to-supporting-tools>
- 38. Standards for RapidReviews: WHO Andrea C. Tricco, Etienne V. Langlois and Sharon E. Straus. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. World Health Organization, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (Tricco). <http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/publications/rapid-review-guide/en/> 142 pages: <http://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/10665/258698/1/9789241512763-eng.pdf?ua=1> >>>>> 8 page summary: <http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resources/publications/alliancehpsr_rapidreviewchapterbrie fs_2018.pdf?ua=1> 2 page flyer: <http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/events/HPSR-flyer-practical-guide-20170811.pdf?ua=1>
- 39. Standards for Rapid Reviews: WHO AndreaC. Tricco, Etienne V. Langlois and Sharon E. Straus. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. World Health Organization, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (Tricco). <http://www.who.int/alliance-hpsr/resource s/publications/rapid-review-guide/en/>
- 40. Standards for RapidReviews: AMSTAR ● AMSTAR <https://amstar.ca/> ● Checklist <https://amstar.ca/Amstar_Checklist.php> ● Checklist as PDF <https://amstar.ca/docs/AMSTAR-2.pdf> Mattivi JT, Buchberger B. USING THE AMSTAR CHECKLIST FOR RAPID REVIEWS: IS IT FEASIBLE? International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2016 32(4):276-283. <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F9E1C970CE082DCCB83958 C0E32D9747/S0266462316000465a.pdf/using_the_amstar_checklist_for_rapid_reviews_is_it_feasible.pdf>
- 41. Standards for RapidReviews: AMSTAR AMSTAR Checklist <https://amstar.ca/> <https://amstar.ca/Amstar_Checklist.php> <https://amstar.ca/docs/AMSTAR-2.pdf> <https://www.cambridge.org/core/services/aop-cambridge-core/content/view/F9E1C970CE082DCCB83958 C0E32D9747/S0266462316000465a.pdf/using_the_amstar_checklist_for_rapid_reviews_is_it_feasible.pdf>
- 42.
- 43. Why a Protocol? “Withoutreview protocols, how can we be assured that decisions made during the research process aren’t arbitrary, or that the decision to include/exclude studies/data in a review aren’t made in light of knowledge about individual study findings?” Larissa Shameer & David Moher. Planning a systematic review? Think protocols. BMC Research in progress blog 2015. <http://blogs.biomedcentral.com/bmcblog/2015/01/05/planning-a-systematic-review-think-protocols/>
- 44. Protocol Examples *Rapid ReviewProtocol - Interventions to promote healthy eating choices when dining out: A systematic review of reviews <http://www.behaviourworksaustralia.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/10/Rapid-Review-Protocol.pdf> *Rapid Review protocol for Post Operative Pain Outcome Measures Study (POPOS) <http://www.comet-initiative.org/studies/details/1070> *Rashek Kazi, Bryan Carroll, Andrea Ketchum. The quantification of patient pain: a rapid review of four commonly employed rating scales. PROSPERO 2018 CRD42018091058 Available from: <http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/display_record.php?ID=CRD42018091058> [PROSPERO: <https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/>] Protocol for a Rapid Evidence Review of Traditional and Complementary Medicine for People with Diabetes Receiving Palliative or End-of-Life Care <https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/8e2b/f4b9287ab7a2f5a9b6ce3c44d1df71d1acda.pdf>
- 45. Rapid Review Examples ArmoiryX et al. Digital Clinical Communication for Families and Caregivers of Children or Young People With Short- or Long-Term Conditions: Rapid Review. J Med Internet Res. 2018 Jan 5;20(1):e5. http://www.jmir.org/2018/1/e5/ Coster JE et al. Why Do People Choose Emergency and Urgent Care Services? A Rapid Review Utilizing a Systematic Literature Search and Narrative Synthesis. Acad Emerg Med. 2017 Sep; 24(9): 1137–1149. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5599959/ Manafò E et al. Patient and public engagement in priority setting: A systematic rapid review of the literature. PLoS One. 2018 Mar 2;13(3):e0193579. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0193579. eCollection 2018. http://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0193579 Slade SC, Philip K, Morris ME. Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst. 2018 Mar 21;16(1):29. https://health-policy-systems.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/s12961-018-0304-2
- 46. Variants, Methods The useof rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies. BMC Medical Research Methodology December 2016, 16:108 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1186/s12874-016-0216-1 Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5702220/ A scoping review of rapid review methods https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4574114/pdf/12916_2015_Article_465.pdf Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Syst Rev. 2016; 5: 79. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4862155/ Turner J, Preston L, Booth A, et al. “Chapter 3: Review methods / Rapid review methods.” What evidence is there for a relationship between organisational features and patient outcomes in congenital heart disease services? A rapid review. Health Services and Delivery Research, No. 2.43. Southampton (UK): NIHR Journals Library; 2014 Nov. <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK263605/>
- 47.
- 48. Rubrics ● Questions ○ PICO[PICO(T), PICO(S), PICO(C), PICO(TS), PIO, PICo] ○ BeHEMoTh ○ CMO / CIMO ○ ECLIPS(E) ○ SPICE ○ SPIDER ○ https://medhealth.leeds.ac.uk/info/639/infor mation_specialists/1500/search_concept_too ls ● Question Types ○ DEPT (Diagnosis, Etiology, Prognosis, Treatment) ● Data & Quality ○ PRISMA http://www.prisma-statement.org/ ○ GRADE http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/ ○ AMSTAR https://amstar.ca/ ● Searching ○ FRIAR / SECT http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfa/mlagui de/free/quickgd.pdf ○ MEMORABLE http://www-personal.umich.edu/~pfa/pro/co urses/memorable.html ● Bias ○ Cochrane http://methods.cochrane.org/bias/assessing- risk-bias-included-studies ○ ROBINS-I / RoB https://sites.google.com/site/riskofbiastool/ ○ McHARM https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK91 433/table/cerguidebias.t7/
- 49. More Information onRapid Reviews Jon Brassey <https://rapid-reviews.info/> Roberfroid D, Fairon N, San Miguel L, Paulus D. Method – Rapid reviews. Methods Brussels: Belgian Health Care Knowledge Centre (KCE). 2016. KCE Process Notes. D/2017/10.273/01. <https://kce.fgov.be/sites/default/files/atoms/files/Rapid_Review_0_0.pdf> Bianca Kramer: <https://www.slideshare.net/bmkramer/how-rapid-is-a-rapid-review> TheEvidenceDoc: <http://www.g-i-n.net/conference/past-conferences/10th-conference/tuesday/8-30-am-to-12-00-pm/ireland-52.pdf> Short Course: <https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/shortcourseunit/rapidreviews2018> Tricco et al: Systematic reviews vs. rapid reviews: What’s the difference? <https://www.cadth.ca/media/events/Andrea-Tricco_RR-vs-Systematic-Reviews_Feb-4-2015.pdf> Ottawa Hospital: A methodology for conducting repaid evidence reviews. <http://www.g-i-n.net/document-store/regional-communities/g-i-n-north-america/slides-a-methodology-for-conducting-repaid-evidence-r eviews>
- 50. Library Guides * VCULibraries: Research Guides: Rapid Review Protocol <https://guides.library.vcu.edu/rapidreview> * HL Wiki International: Rapid Reviews: <http://hlwiki.slais.ubc.ca/index.php/Rapid_reviews> Temple University: Systematic Reviews & Other Review Types: What is a Rapid Review? <http://guides.temple.edu/c.php?g=78618&p=4156608> Becker Medical Library: Systematic Reviews: Rapid Reviews <http://beckerguides.wustl.edu/c.php?g=299565&p=2000687>
- 51.