Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews.
Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews.
复制标题
DOI：
10.1186/1748-5908-5-56
复制
发表时间：
2010-07-19
期刊：
影响因子：
--
通讯作者：
Thomas H
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Ganann R;Ciliska D;Thomas H
政策制定者和其他人通常需要在六个月或更短的时间内综合某个领域的知识。传统的系统评价通常需要至少 12 个月的时间才能进行。快速审查简化了传统的系统审查方法，以便在更短的时间内综合证据。进行快速审查的过程存在很大差异。本综述旨在探讨快速审查所使用的方法，以及方法精简在严谨性、偏见和结果方面的影响。采取了全面的检索策略，包括五个电子数据库、灰色文献、相关期刊的手工检索以及联系关键信息提供者。所有标题和摘要（n = 1,989）均由两名审稿人独立审阅。相关性标准包括 1995 年至 2009 年间发表的有关进行快速审查或解决快速审查与传统审查比较的文章。检索任何一位审稿人认为相关的任何标题的完整文章（n = 70）。数据从所有相关方法论文章 (n = 45) 和快速审查方法范例 (n = 25) 中提取。快速审查从三周到六个月不等；采用了各种方法来加速这一过程。有些限制搜索的年份、数据库、语言和电子搜索之外的来源。其中一些公司聘请了一名审稿人来进行标题和摘要审阅、全文审阅、方法学质量评估和/或数据提取阶段。在快速回顾研究中，加速数据提取过程可能会导致丢失一些相关信息。由于文献检索、文章检索和评估的时间缩短，可能会引入偏差。本综述考察了多种快速审查方法和传统系统审查之间的连续性。它还研究了简化审查方法的潜在影响。更多此类快速评论需要在同行评审文献中发表，重点是阐明所采用的方法。虽然一种一致的方法可能不是最佳或适当的，但重要的是，研究人员在快速系统的连续体中进行审查，提供所用方法的详细描述，并讨论他们选择的方法对引入的潜在偏差的影响。进一步研究比较完整的系统评价和快速评价将增强对这些方法局限性的理解。
Policy makers and others often require synthesis of knowledge in an area within six months or less. Traditional systematic reviews typically take at least 12 months to conduct. Rapid reviews streamline traditional systematic review methods in order to synthesize evidence within a shortened timeframe. There is great variation in the process of conducting rapid reviews. This review sought to examine methods used for rapid reviews, as well as implications of methodological streamlining in terms of rigour, bias, and results. A comprehensive search strategy--including five electronic databases, grey literature, hand searching of relevant journals, and contacting key informants--was undertaken. All titles and abstracts (n = 1,989) were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Relevance criteria included articles published between 1995 and 2009 about conducting rapid reviews or addressing comparisons of rapid reviews versus traditional reviews. Full articles were retrieved for any titles deemed relevant by either reviewer (n = 70). Data were extracted from all relevant methodological articles (n = 45) and from exemplars of rapid review methods (n = 25). Rapid reviews varied from three weeks to six months; various methods for speeding up the process were employed. Some limited searching by years, databases, language, and sources beyond electronic searches. Several employed one reviewer for title and abstract reviewing, full text review, methodological quality assessment, and/or data extraction phases. Within rapid review studies, accelerating the data extraction process may lead to missing some relevant information. Biases may be introduced due to shortened timeframes for literature searching, article retrieval, and appraisal. This review examined the continuum between diverse rapid review methods and traditional systematic reviews. It also examines potential implications of streamlined review methods. More of these rapid reviews need to be published in the peer-reviewed literature with an emphasis on articulating methods employed. While one consistent methodological approach may not be optimal or appropriate, it is important that researchers undertaking reviews within the rapid to systematic continuum provide detailed descriptions of methods used and discuss the implications of their chosen methods in terms of potential bias introduced. Further research comparing full systematic reviews with rapid reviews will enhance understanding of the limitations of these methods.
登录
查看更多内容
DOI：
10.1017/s026646230200020x
发表时间：
2002-03-01
影响因子：
3.2
作者：
Eisenberg, JM;Zarin, D
通讯作者：
Zarin, D
影响因子：
120.7
作者：
Jadad, AR;Cook, DJ;Moher, D
通讯作者：
Moher, D
影响因子：
7.7
作者：
Jüni, P;Holenstein, F;Egger, M
通讯作者：
Egger, M
影响因子：
2
作者：
Edwards, P;Clarke, M;Wentz, R
通讯作者：
Wentz, R
影响因子：
105.7
作者：
Egger, M;Smith, GD
通讯作者：
Smith, GD