Comparison of a full systematic review versus rapid review approaches to assess a newborn screening test for tyrosinemia type 1

BACKGROUND Rapid reviews are increasingly used to replace/complement systematic reviews to support evidence-based decision-making. Little is known about how this expedited process affects results. OBJECTIVES To assess differences between rapid and systematic review approaches for a case study of test accuracy of succinylacetone for detecting tyrosinemia type 1. METHODS Two reviewers conducted an "enhanced" rapid review then a systematic review. The enhanced rapid review involved narrower searches, a single reviewer checking 20% of titles/abstracts and data extraction, and quality assessment using an unadjusted QUADAS-2. Two reviewers performed the systematic review with a tailored QUADAS-2. Post hoc analysis examined rapid reviewing with a single reviewer (basic rapid review). RESULTS Ten papers were included. Basic rapid reviews would have missed 1 or 4 of these (dependent on which reviewer). Enhanced rapid and systematic reviews identified all 10 papers; one paper was only identified in the rapid review through reference checking. Two thousand one hundred seventy-six fewer title/abstracts and 129 fewer full texts were screened during the enhanced rapid review than the systematic review. The unadjusted QUADAS-2 generated more "unclear" ratings than the adjusted QUADAS-2 [29/70 (41.4%) versus 16/70 (22.9%)], and fewer "high" ratings [22/70 (31.4%) versus 42/70 (60.0%)]. Basic rapid reviews contained important inaccuracies in data extraction, which were detected by a second reviewer in the enhanced rapid and systematic reviews. CONCLUSIONS Enhanced rapid reviews with 20% checking by a second reviewer may be an appropriate tool for policymakers to expeditiously assess evidence. Basic rapid reviews (single reviewer) have higher risks of important inaccuracies and omissions.

[1]  T. Zytkovicz,et al.  Newborn screening for hepatorenal tyrosinemia by tandem mass spectrometry: analysis of succinylacetone extracted from dried blood spots. , 2004, Clinical biochemistry.

[2]  David Hailey,et al.  RAPID VERSUS FULL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: VALIDITY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE? , 2008, ANZ journal of surgery.

[3]  David Moher,et al.  Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[4]  F. Lorey,et al.  Improved tandem mass spectrometry (MS/MS) derivatized method for the detection of tyrosinemia type I, amino acids and acylcarnitine disorders using a single extraction process. , 2011, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[5]  Donna Ciliska,et al.  Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[6]  E. Mayatepek,et al.  Newborn screening for hepatorenal tyrosinemia: Tandem mass spectrometric quantification of succinylacetone. , 2006, Clinical chemistry.

[7]  S. Taylor-Phillips,et al.  Newborn screening for Tyrosinemia type 1 using succinylacetone – a systematic review of test accuracy , 2017, Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases.

[8]  P. Shekelle,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[9]  M. Caggana,et al.  Newborn screening for Tyr-I: two years' experience of the New York State program. , 2011, Molecular genetics and metabolism.

[10]  A. Kazanjian,et al.  Evidence-based practice: extending the search to find material for the systematic review. , 2001, Bulletin of the Medical Library Association.

[11]  Susan Mallett,et al.  Circulating MicroRNAs as a Novel Class of Diagnostic Biomarkers in Gastrointestinal Tumors Detection: A Meta-Analysis Based on 42 Articles , 2014, PloS one.

[12]  D. Moher,et al.  Scoping reviews: time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting. , 2014, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[13]  Flemming Skovby,et al.  Biochemical screening of 504,049 newborns in Denmark, the Faroe Islands and Greenland--experience and development of a routine program for expanded newborn screening. , 2012, Molecular genetics and metabolism.

[14]  P. Rinaldo,et al.  Combined newborn screening for succinylacetone, amino acids, and acylcarnitines in dried blood spots. , 2008, Clinical chemistry.

[15]  Julie Polisena,et al.  Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[16]  David Hailey,et al.  Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[17]  H. Arksey,et al.  Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework , 2005 .

[18]  Thomas P. Mechtler,et al.  Evaluation of a novel, commercially available mass spectrometry kit for newborn screening including succinylacetone without hydrazine. , 2012, Clinica chimica acta; international journal of clinical chemistry.

[19]  T. Zytkovicz,et al.  Newborn screening for hepatorenal tyrosinemia-I by tandem mass spectrometry using pooled samples: a four-year summary by the New England newborn screening program. , 2013, Clinical biochemistry.

[20]  D. Parker,et al.  Guidance for conducting systematic scoping reviews , 2015, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[21]  D. Moher,et al.  A scoping review of rapid review methods , 2015, BMC Medicine.

[22]  Trudy van der Weijden,et al.  How to integrate individual patient values and preferences in clinical practice guidelines? A research protocol , 2010, Implementation science : IS.

[23]  D. Hailey,et al.  Health technology assessment in Canada: diversity and evolution , 2007, The Medical journal of Australia.

[24]  R. Guerrini,et al.  Newborn Screening for Tyrosinemia Type I: Further Evidence that Succinylacetone Determination on Blood Spot Is Essential. , 2011, JIMD reports.

[25]  G. la Marca,et al.  The inclusion of succinylacetone as marker for tyrosinemia type I in expanded newborn screening programs. , 2008, Rapid communications in mass spectrometry : RCM.

[26]  Alexander Tsertsvadze,et al.  How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously? , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[27]  Phil Edwards,et al.  Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records , 2002, Statistics in medicine.

[28]  Lisa Hartling,et al.  Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews , 2015, Systematic Reviews.