RAPID REVIEW: AN EMERGING APPROACH TO EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Background: Increasingly, healthcare decision makers demand quality evidence in a short timeframe to support urgent and emergent decisions related to procurement, clinical practice, and policy. Health technology assessment (HTA) producers are responding by developing innovative approaches to evidence synthesis that can be executed more quickly than traditional systematic review. These approaches, and the broader implications they bring to bear on health decision making and policy development, however, are generally neither well-understood nor well-described. This study intends to contribute to an emerging literature around methodological approaches to rapid review in HTA by outlining those developed and implemented by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Methods: Since 2005, CADTH has developed and implemented a rapid review approach that synthesizes evidence to support informed healthcare decisions and policy. Rapid Response reports are tailored to the identified needs of Canadian health decision makers, representing a range of options with regard to depth, breadth, and time-to-delivery. Results: Preliminary observations indicate that CADTH's approach to rapid evidence review is generally well-received by Canadian health decision makers; real-world case studies provide pragmatic examples of how health decision makers have used Rapid Response reports to support evidence-informed health decisions across Canada. Conclusions: Rapid review is becoming an increasingly important approach to evidence synthesis, both within and external to the field of HTA. Transparent reporting of the methods used to develop rapid review products will be critical to the assessment of their relevance, utility and effects in a range of contexts.

[1]  P Corabian,et al.  THE USE AND IMPACT OF RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTS , 2000, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[2]  Kath Wright,et al.  PTSD in prison settings: A systematic review and meta-analysis of comorbid mental disorders and problematic behaviours , 2019, PloS one.

[3]  Susan Mallett,et al.  QUADAS-2: A Revised Tool for the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies , 2011, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[4]  J. Higgins Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration , 2011 .

[5]  Ruth Deakin Crick,et al.  Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre , 2003 .

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

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

[8]  Sally Hopewell,et al.  Empty Reviews: A Description and Consideration of Cochrane Systematic Reviews with No Included Studies , 2012, PloS one.

[9]  M. Drummond,et al.  Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions , 2008, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[10]  PREVENTING NSAID INDUCED GI COMPLICATIONS: AN ECONOMIC EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE STRATEGIES IN CANADA February 13, 2007 Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH) , 2007 .

[11]  David Moher,et al.  The art and science of knowledge synthesis. , 2011, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[12]  N. Black,et al.  The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. , 1998, Journal of epidemiology and community health.

[13]  D. Sackett,et al.  Cochrane Collaboration , 1994, BMJ.

[14]  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.

[15]  D. Gough,et al.  Clarifying differences between review designs and methods , 2012, Systematic Reviews.

[16]  D. Menon,et al.  Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? , 2009, Value in health : the journal of the International Society for Pharmacoeconomics and Outcomes Research.

[17]  L. McGahan,et al.  Preoperative Skin Antiseptic Preparations and Application Techniques for Preventing Surgical Site Infections: A Systematic Review of the Clinical Evidence and Guidelines , 2011 .

[18]  David Hailey,et al.  A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments , 2009, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[19]  Michelle E. Kho,et al.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care , 2010, Canadian Medical Association Journal.

[20]  V. Preedy,et al.  Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network , 2010 .

[21]  Sandy Oliver,et al.  Rapid evidence assessments of research to inform social policy: taking stock and moving forward , 2013 .

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

[23]  Gene Feder,et al.  AGREE II: advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. , 2010, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[24]  Kurt P Spindler,et al.  How to Write a Systematic Review , 2007, Clinical orthopaedics and related research.

[25]  Philip C. Abrami,et al.  Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence , 2010 .

[26]  Jos Kleijnen,et al.  What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. , 2012, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[27]  Sally Thigpen,et al.  Moving Knowledge into Action: Developing the Rapid Synthesis and Translation Process Within the Interactive Systems Framework , 2012, American journal of community psychology.

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