Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews.
Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews.
复制标题
提高快速评论的知识：对已发表的快速评论评论文章的结果、结论和建议进行分析。
DOI：
10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4
复制
发表时间：
2015-04-17
影响因子：
3.7
通讯作者：
Hartling L
中科院分区：
文献类型：
--
作者：
Featherstone RM;Dryden DM;Foisy M;Guise JM;Mitchell MD;Paynter RA;Robinson KA;Umscheid CA;Hartling L
快速审评（RR）产品本质上很有吸引力，因为它们比传统的系统审评（SR）更省时、更省资源；然而，人们对方法的严谨性和结果的可靠性感到担忧。 2013 年至 2014 年，由医疗保健研究和质量机构循证实践中心计划代表组成的工作组对 RR 进行了正式评估。本文总结了已发表的审查 RR 的评论文章的结果、结论和建议。进行了系统的文献检索，并由两名评审员独立筛选出版物。确定了 12 篇有关 RR 的评论文章。一名研究人员提取了有关 RR 方法的数据以及它们如何与标准 SR 进行比较。提供了叙述性摘要。评论文章的交叉比较揭示了以下内容：1) RR 的定义不明确，2) 完成 RR 的时间范围从 1 到 12 个月不等，3) RR 问题的范围有限，4) RR 方法之间存在显着的异质性。 RR 的定义、方法和应用差异很大。已发表的评论文章表明，不应将 RR 视为标准 SR 的替代品，尽管它们对决策者具有独特的价值。对 RR 生产商的建议包括所用方法的透明度和报告标准的制定。本文的在线版本 (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4) 包含补充材料，可供授权用户使用。
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. 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. 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. 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. The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.