Evidence map›Paper›PMID 26377409›Full record

ArticleBMC medicine2015

A scoping review of rapid review methods.

Andrea C Tricco, Jesmin Antony, Wasifa Zarin, Lisa Strifler, Marco Ghassemi, John Ivory, Laure Perrier, Brian Hutton, David Moher, Sharon E Straus

Abstract readScoping Review
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMC medicine, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 412 papers, 31 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
412citing papers in PubMed, 31 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

412 citing papers in PubMed, 31 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Pooled it
  13. Pooled it
  14. Pooled it
  15. Pooled it
  16. Pooled it
  17. Pooled it
  18. Pooled it
  19. Pooled it
  20. Pooled it

352 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

10 authors.

Andrea C TriccoLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada. TriccoA@smh.ca.
Jesmin AntonyLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada. AntonyJ@smh.ca.
Wasifa ZarinLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada. ZarinW@smh.ca.
Lisa StriflerLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada. StriflerL@smh.ca.
Marco GhassemiLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada. marco.m.ghassemi@gmail.com.
John IvoryLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada. john.d.ivory@gmail.com.
Laure PerrierInstitute for Health Policy Management and Evaluation, University of Toronto, 4th Floor, 155 College Street, Toronto, ON, M5T 3 M6, Canada. l.perrier@utoronto.ca.
Brian HuttonOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada. bhutton@ohri.ca.
David MoherOttawa Hospital Research Institute, Ottawa Methods Centre, Ottawa, ON, Canada. dmoher@ohri.ca.
Sharon E StrausLi Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, ON, M5B 1 W8, Canada. sharon.straus@utoronto.ca.

Funding

OLFACTORY RECEPTORSF32DC000190 · NIDCD · CALIFORNIA INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY · PI ZHANG, YINONG · 1995 to 1998
–
Canadian Institutes of Health Research 294284Canadian Institutes of Health Research DC0190GPNIDCD NIH HHS F32 DC000190
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundRapid 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.

methodsMEDLINE, 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.

resultsWe 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.

conclusionsNumerous 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.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicHumansProspective Studies

Identifiers

PMID26377409
PMCPMC4574114

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.