ArticleBMC medical research methodology2016
The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled 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.
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.
Who cites it
12 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Pragmatic methods for reviewing exceptionally large bodies of evidence: systematic mapping review and overview of systematic reviews using lung cancer survival as an exemplar.Systematic reviews · 2019Pooled it
- Health technology reassessment and disinvestment instruments: a scoping review.Health research policy and systems · 2026Review
- Rapid literature review: definition and methodology.Journal of market access & health policy · 2023Review
- Toward an inclusive digital health system for sexual and gender minorities in Canada.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Review
- Adaptive health technology assessment to facilitate priority setting in low- and middle-income countries.BMJ global health · 2021Article
- A rapid review of gender, sex, and sexual orientation documentation in electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Review
- Case report: a rapid review approach used by the UK National Screening Committee to inform recommendations on general population screening for vasa praevia.Systematic reviews · 2019Article
- Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- The WHO-INTEGRATE evidence to decision framework version 1.0: integrating WHO norms and values and a complexity perspective.BMJ global health · 2019Article
- Rapid response in health technology assessment: a Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- The double-edged algorithm: A rapid review exploring the trustworthy and responsible use of generative AI in public health.Digital healthReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid reviews are of increasing importance within health technology assessment due to time and resource constraints. There are many rapid review methods available although there is little guidance as to the most suitable methods. We present three case studies employing differing methods to suit the evidence base for each review and outline some issues to consider when selecting an appropriate method.
methodsThree recently completed systematic review short reports produced for the UK National Institute for Health Research were examined. Different approaches to rapid review methods were used in the three reports which were undertaken to inform the commissioning of services within the NHS and to inform future trial design. We describe the methods used, the reasoning behind the choice of methods and explore the strengths and weaknesses of each method.
resultsRapid review methods were chosen to meet the needs of the review and each review had distinctly different challenges such as heterogeneity in terms of populations, interventions, comparators and outcome measures (PICO) and/or large numbers of relevant trials. All reviews included at least 10 randomised controlled trials (RCTs), each with numerous included outcomes. For the first case study (sexual health interventions), very diverse studies in terms of PICO were included. P-values and summary information only were presented due to substantial heterogeneity between studies and outcomes measured. For the second case study (premature ejaculation treatments), there were over 100 RCTs but also several existing systematic reviews. Data for meta-analyses were extracted directly from existing systematic reviews with new RCT data added where available. For the final case study (cannabis cessation therapies), studies included a wide range of interventions and considerable variation in study populations and outcomes. A brief summary of the key findings for each study was presented and narrative synthesis used to summarise results for each pair of interventions compared.
conclusionsRapid review methods need to be chosen to meet both the nature of the evidence base of a review and the challenges presented by the included studies. Appropriate methods should be chosen after an assessment of the evidence base.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.