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

BackgroundRapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research. This rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies sought to answer the question: What are the best methodologies to enable a rapid review of research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice?MethodsThis rapid review utilised systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol including clear inclusion criteria (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015998). A comprehensive search strategy was used, including published and grey literature, written in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish, from 2004 onwards. Eleven databases and two websites were searched. Two review authors independently applied the eligibility criteria. Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. A narrative summary of the results is presented.ResultsFive systematic reviews and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) that investigated methodologies for rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. None of the systematic reviews were of sufficient quality to allow firm conclusions to be made. Thus, the findings need to be treated with caution. There is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting rapid reviews. While a wide range of ‘shortcuts’ are used to make rapid reviews faster than a full systematic review, the included studies found little empirical evidence of their impact on the conclusions of either rapid or systematic reviews. There is some evidence from the included RCT (that had a low risk of bias) that rapid reviews may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence for decision makers.ConclusionsGreater care needs to be taken in improving the transparency of the methods used in rapid review products. There is no evidence available to suggest that rapid reviews should not be done or that they are misleading in any way. We offer an improved definition of rapid reviews to guide future research as well as clearer guidance for policy and practice.

[1]  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.

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

[3]  Jeremy Grimshaw,et al.  AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. , 2009, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[4]  S. Shepperd,et al.  Comparison of Alternative Evidence Summary and Presentation Formats in Clinical Guideline Development: A Mixed-Method Study , 2013, PloS one.

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

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

[7]  F. Song,et al.  Dissemination and publication of research findings: an updated review of related biases. , 2010, Health technology assessment.

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

[9]  J. Doshi,et al.  International survey of methods used in health technology assessment (HTA): does practice meet the principles proposed for good research? , 2012 .

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

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

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

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

[14]  Martin O'Flaherty,et al.  The Use of Research Evidence in Public Health Decision Making Processes: Systematic Review , 2011, PloS one.

[15]  S. Redman,et al.  What works to increase the use of research in population health policy and programmes: a review , 2011 .

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

[17]  D. Moher,et al.  Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. , 2010, International journal of surgery.

[18]  I. Chalmers.  If evidence-informed policy works in practice, does it matter if it doesn't work in theory? , 2005 .

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

[20]  Michael G. Wilson,et al.  Developing a rapid-response program for health system decision-makers in Canada: findings from an issue brief and stakeholder dialogue , 2015, Systematic Reviews.

[21]  Michele Tarsilla.  Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions , 2010, Journal of MultiDisciplinary Evaluation.

[22]  Julie Polisena,et al.  RAPID REVIEW: AN EMERGING APPROACH TO EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT , 2014, International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care.

[23]  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.

[24]  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.

[25]  T. Lorenc,et al.  A systematic review of barriers to and facilitators of the use of evidence by policymakers , 2014, BMC Health Services Research.

[26]  Marco Liverani,et al.  Political and Institutional Influences on the Use of Evidence in Public Health Policy. A Systematic Review , 2013, PloS one.

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

[28]  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.

[29]  Sandra Nutley,et al.  Bridging the policy / research divide Reflections and Lessons from the UK , 2003 .

[30]  David Moher,et al.  An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. , 2016, Journal of clinical epidemiology.

[31]  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.

[32]  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.