Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study

Background As production of rapid reviews (RRs) increases in healthcare, knowing how to efficiently convey RR evidence to various end-users is important given they are often intended to directly inform decision-making. Little is known about how often RRs are produced in the published or unpublished domains, and what and how information is structured. Objectives To compare and contrast report format and content features of journal-published (JP) and non-journal published (NJP) RRs. Methods JP RRs were identified from key databases, and NJP RRs were identified from a grey literature search of 148 RR producing organizations and were sampled proportionate to cluster size by organization and product type to match the JP RR group. We extracted and formally compared ‘how’ (i.e., visual arrangement) and ‘what’ information was presented. Results We identified 103 RRs (52 JP and 51 NJP) from 2016. A higher percentage of certain features were observed in JP RRs compared to NJP RRs (e.g., reporting authors; use of a traditional journal article structure; section headers including abstract, methods, discussion, conclusions, acknowledgments, conflict of interests, and author contributions; and use of figures (e.g., Study Flow Diagram) in the main document). For NJP RRs, a higher percentage of features were observed (e.g., use non-traditional report structures; bannering of executive summary sections and appendices; use of typographic cues; and including outcome tables). NJP RRs were more than double in length versus JP RRs. Including key messages was uncommon in both groups. Conclusions This comparative study highlights differences between JP and NJP RRs. Both groups may benefit from better use of plain language, and more clear and concise design. Alternative innovative formats and end-user preferences for content and layout should be studied further with thought given to other considerations to ensure better packaging of RR results to facilitate uptake into policy and practice. Study registration The full protocol is available at: https://osf.io/29xvk/.

[1]  Andrew D Oxman,et al.  SUPPORT Tools for evidence-informed health Policymaking (STP) 13: Preparing and using policy briefs to support evidence-informed policymaking , 2009, Health research policy and systems.

[2]  Aries Arditi,et al.  Serifs and font legibility , 2005, Vision Research.

[3]  Karen Golden-Biddle,et al.  Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making , 2005, Journal of health services research & policy.

[4]  J. Lavis,et al.  Designing a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in the Americas region: using the best available evidence and case studies , 2015, Implementation Science.

[5]  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.

[6]  Sarah E. Rosenbaum,et al.  Policymakers’ and other stakeholders’ perceptions of key considerations for health system decisions and the presentation of evidence to inform those considerations: an international survey , 2013, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[7]  M. Dobbins,et al.  Public health decision-makers' informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence. , 2007, Worldviews on evidence-based nursing.

[8]  Gerald Gartlehner,et al.  Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses , 2016, Systematic Reviews.

[9]  S. Straus,et al.  A usability study of two formats of a shortened systematic review for clinicians , 2014, BMJ Open.

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

[11]  Sharon E Straus,et al.  An iterative evaluation of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians: a focus group study. , 2014, Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA.

[12]  P. Tugwell,et al.  The effectiveness of evidence summaries on health policymakers and health system managers use of evidence from systematic reviews: a systematic review , 2016, Implementation Science.

[13]  E Heseltine.  Why authors have to use a rigid format for their journal articles. , 2015, Annals of the Royal College of Surgeons of England.

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

[15]  K. A. McKibbon,et al.  Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians , 2013, Implementation Science.

[16]  David Moher,et al.  Potential predatory and legitimate biomedical journals: can you tell the difference? A cross-sectional comparison , 2017, BMC Medicine.

[17]  John N. Lavis,et al.  What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review , 2016, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[18]  J. McGowan,et al.  PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[19]  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.

[20]  A. Laupacis,et al.  Systematic Reviews: Time to Address Clinical and Policy Relevance As Well As Methodological Rigor , 2007, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[21]  Mark Chignell,et al.  Enhancing the uptake of systematic reviews of effects: what is the best format for health care managers and policy-makers? A mixed-methods study , 2018, Implementation Science.

[22]  David Moher,et al.  All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[23]  Maria Pavia,et al.  Physicians' knowledge, attitudes and professional use of RCTs and meta-analyses: a cross-sectional survey. , 2009, European journal of public health.

[24]  Andrew W. Brown,et al.  Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry , 2017, BMJ Open.

[25]  Adnan A Hyder,et al.  National policy-makers speak out: are researchers giving them what they need? , 2010, Health policy and planning.

[26]  Sarah E. Rosenbaum,et al.  Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries. , 2011, Bulletin of the World Health Organization.

[27]  M. Clarke,et al.  Making evidence more wanted: a systematic review of facilitators to enhance the uptake of evidence from systematic reviews and meta-analyses. , 2012, International journal of evidence-based healthcare.

[28]  Michael J. Miller,et al.  Assessing readability formula differences with written health information materials: application, results, and recommendations. , 2013, Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP.

[29]  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.

[30]  John N Lavis,et al.  Working within and beyond the Cochrane Collaboration to make systematic reviews more useful to healthcare managers and policy makers. , 2006, Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante.