A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews.

OBJECTIVE To compare rapid reviews (RRs) to same-topic systematic reviews (SRs) for methods, studies included, and conclusions. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING A retrospective comparison of studies comparing RRs and SRs by searching four scoping reviews published between 2007 and 2016. Reports were included if literature searches were conducted within 24 months of each other and had common research questions. Reviews were compared for duration, studies included, population, intervention, comparisons, outcomes, study designs, quality, methods, and conclusions. RESULTS Six studies containing 16 review pairs were included, covering nine topics. Overall, RRs used abbreviated methods more often: no search of grey literature, employing one reviewer to screen studies, engaging fewer experts, including fewer studies, and providing shorter reports, with poorer reporting quality and faster completion. Reviews reported similar conclusions, with two exceptions: one SR did not include a key study; separately, two RRs failed to highlight an association with early mortality identified by the SR. RRs tended to provide less detail and fewer considerations. CONCLUSION RRs used several methodological shortcuts compared with SRs on the same topic. It was challenging to discern methodological differences because of retrospective assessment and substantial nonreporting, particularly for RRs.

[1]  G. Maddern,et al.  The safety and efficacy of topical negative pressure in non-healing wounds: a systematic review. , 2006, Journal of wound care.

[2]  David Moher,et al.  Epidemiology and Reporting Characteristics of Systematic Reviews , 2007, PLoS medicine.

[3]  M. Brazzelli,et al.  A systematic review of the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of metal-on-metal hip resurfacing arthroplasty for treatment of hip disease. , 2002, Health technology assessment.

[4]  Hip resurfacing in patients with severe osteoarthritis and blocked medullary canal. , 2018, Hip international : the journal of clinical and experimental research on hip pathology and therapy.

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

[6]  S. Chrubasik,et al.  Medicinal use of potato‐derived products: a systematic review , 2010, Phytotherapy Research.

[7]  T. Lopez.  On Archimedes , 2003, Archives of disease in childhood.

[8]  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.

[9]  E. Russi,et al.  Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema. , 1997, The European respiratory journal.

[10]  Lisa Hartling,et al.  EPC Methods: An Exploration of Methods and Context for the Production of Rapid Reviews , 2015 .

[11]  [The Institute for Quality and Efficiency in Health Care - IQWiG]. , 2018, Gesundheitswesen (Bundesverband der Arzte des Offentlichen Gesundheitsdienstes (Germany)).

[12]  Paula R Williamson,et al.  Infrared ear thermometry compared with rectal thermometry in children: a systematic review , 2002, The Lancet.

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

[14]  A. Tricco,et al.  Barriers, facilitators, strategies and outcomes to engaging policymakers, healthcare managers and policy analysts in knowledge synthesis: a scoping review protocol , 2016, BMJ Open.

[15]  BET 2: Potato peel dressings for burn wounds , 2010, Emergency Medicine Journal.

[16]  S. Norris,et al.  Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review , 2016, PloS one.

[17]  J. Higgins,et al.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, International Coaching Psychology Review.

[18]  J. Cairns.  Providing guidance to the NHS: The Scottish Medicines Consortium and the National Institute for Clinical Excellence compared. , 2006, Health policy.

[19]  S. Ward,et al.  Taxanes for the adjuvant treatment of early breast cancer: systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2007, Health technology assessment.

[20]  V. Warren.  Health technology appraisal of interventional procedures: comparison of rapid and slow methods , 2007, Journal of health services research & policy.

[21]  M. Petticrew,et al.  Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences: A Practical Guide , 2005 .

[22]  Sharon E. Straus,et al.  Barriers and facilitators to uptake of systematic reviews by policy makers and health care managers: a scoping review , 2015, Implementation Science.

[23]  S. Sauerland,et al.  Disagreement in primary study selection between systematic reviews on negative pressure wound therapy , 2008, BMC medical research methodology.

[24]  G. Maddern,et al.  Living donor liver transplantation—Adult donor outcomes: A systematic review , 2006, Liver transplantation : official publication of the American Association for the Study of Liver Diseases and the International Liver Transplantation Society.

[25]  D G Colin-Jones,et al.  Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England , 1997 .

[26]  M. Kaplow,et al.  An evaluation of drug eluting ( coated ) stents for percutaneous coronary interventions , 2003 .

[27]  G. Snell,et al.  Lung volume reduction surgery for emphysema , 1997, The Medical journal of Australia.

[28]  Bert Aertgeerts,et al.  Medicinal use of potato‐derived products: conclusions of a rapid versus full systematic review , 2011, Phytotherapy research : PTR.

[29]  Andrew Booth,et al.  Comparing methods for full versus single technology appraisal: a case study of docetaxel and paclitaxel for early breast cancer. , 2008, Health policy.

[30]  J. Chilcott,et al.  Docetaxel for the adjuvant treatment of early node-positive breast cancer: a single technology appraisal. , 2009, Health technology assessment.

[31]  David Moher,et al.  Development of AMSTAR: a measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews , 2007, BMC medical research methodology.

[32]  D. Grant,et al.  Adult-to-adult living donor liver transplantation. , 2006, Canadian journal of gastroenterology = Journal canadien de gastroenterologie.

[33]  Bruce Brady,et al.  Vacuum assisted wound closure therapy. , 2003, Issues in emerging health technologies.

[34]  A Haycox,et al.  Coronary artery stents: a rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. , 2004, Health technology assessment.

[35]  S. Palmer,et al.  The use of paclitaxel in the management of early stage breast cancer. , 2009, Health Technology Assessment.

[36]  Rachel Churchill,et al.  ROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.