Evidence map›Paper›PMID 30590190›Full record

SynthesisJournal of clinical epidemiology2019

Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.

Iain J Marshall, Rachel Marshall, Byron C Wallace, Jon Brassey, James Thomas

Abstract readMeta-Analysis
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Synthesis in Journal of clinical epidemiology, 2019. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 32 papers, 4 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
32citing papers in PubMed, 4 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

32 citing papers in PubMed, 4 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Article
  6. Article
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Article
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Rapid literature review: definition and methodology.Journal of market access & health policy · 2023
    Review
  14. Article
  15. Article
  16. Review
  17. Article
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
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

5 authors.

Iain J MarshallSchool of Population Health and Environmental Sciences, King's College London, London, UK. Electronic address: iain.marshall@kcl.ac.uk.
Rachel MarshallIndependent Researcher, London, UK.
Byron C WallaceCollege of Computer and Information Science, Northeastern University, Boston, MA, USA.
Jon BrasseyTRIP Database, Newport, UK.
James ThomasUCL Institute of Education, University College London, London, UK.

Funding

Hybrid Approaches to Optimizing Evidence Synthesis via Machine Learning and CrowdsourcingR03HS025024 · AHRQ · NORTHEASTERN UNIVERSITY · PI WALLACE, BYRON CASEY · 2016 to 2016
$99k
AHRQ HHS R03 HS025024Medical Research Council MR/J005037/1Medical Research Council MR/N015185/1
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectiveTo simulate possible changes in systematic review results if rapid review methods were used. STUDY DESIGN AND

settingWe recalculated meta-analyses for binary primary outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews, simulating rapid review methods. We simulated searching only PubMed, excluding older articles (5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 years before the search date), excluding smaller trials (<50, <100, and <200 participants), and using the largest trial only. We examined percentage changes in pooled odds ratios (ORs) (classed as no important change [<5%], small [<20%], moderate [<30%], or large [≥30%]), statistical significance, and biases observed using rapid methods.

resultsTwo thousand five hundred and twelve systematic reviews (16,088 studies) were included. Rapid methods resulted in the loss of all data in 3.7-44.7% of meta-analyses. Searching only PubMed had the smallest risk of changed ORs (19% [477/2,512] were small changes or greater; 10% [260/2,512] were moderate or greater). Changes in ORs varied substantially with each rapid review method; 8.4-21.3% were small, 1.9-8.8% were moderate, and 4.7-34.1% were large. Changes in statistical significance occurred in 6.5-38.6% of meta-analyses. Changes from significant to nonsignificant were most common (2.1-13.7% meta-analyses). We found no evidence of bias with any rapid review method.

conclusionSearching PubMed only might be considered where a ∼10% risk of the primary outcome OR changing by >20% could be tolerated. This could be the case in scoping reviews, resource limitation, or where syntheses are needed urgently. Other situations, such as clinical guidelines and regulatory decisions, favor more comprehensive systematic review methods.

Indexed as

Review Literature as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicEpidemiologic MethodsEpidemiologic StudiesHumansPubMedMeta-epidemiological studiesRapid reviewsResearch synthesisSystematic reviews

Identifiers

PMID30590190
PMCPMC6524137

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.