Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness

BMJ, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. e076335 - e076335

Published: Feb. 6, 2024

This article provides updated guidance on methods for conducting rapid reviews of effectiveness, targeted at Cochrane and other stakeholders interested in the methodology reviews. The guidance, developed by Rapid Reviews Methods Group, builds upon previous interim incorporates changes based an evaluation its application, a scope literature review methodology, input from diverse group experts methods. consists 24 specific recommendations supporting conduct reviews, applicable both within outside Cochrane. It underscores importance considering appropriateness undertaking advocates tailored, iterative approach to each review. Key defining features such as restricted methods, how dimension timelines factors into involvement knowledge users (eg, patient public partners, healthcare providers, policy makers), are outlined. paper presents definition additional considerations effectiveness enhance efficiency process. In conclusion, Review Group's complemented examples, seeks guide methodological decisions design facilitating timely decision making healthcare.

Language: Английский

---

Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 28(6), P. 412 - 417

Published: April 19, 2023

This paper is part of a series methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. reviews (RR) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. In this paper, we address considerations for RR searches. We cover main areas relevant search process: preparation planning, information sources methods, strategy development, quality assurance, reporting, record management. Two options exist abbreviating (1) reducing time spent on conducting searches (2) size result. Because screening results usually more resource-intensive than search, suggest investing upfront in planning optimising save by literature workload. To achieve goal, teams should work with an specialist. They select small number (eg, databases) that are highly likely identify their topic. Database strategies aim optimise both precision sensitivity, assurance measures (peer validation strategies) be applied minimise errors.

Language: Английский

---

Can integrated care interventions strengthen primary care and improve outcomes for patients with chronic diseases? A systematic review and meta-analysis

Health Research Policy and Systems, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 23(1)

Published: Jan. 6, 2025

An increasing number of people live with chronic disease or multi-morbidity. Current consensus is that their care requires an integrated model bringing different professionals together to provide person-centred care. Although primary has a central role in managing disease, and integration may be important strengthening this role, previous research shown insufficient attention the relationships between integration. This review summarizes involvement interventions assesses effect those on range measures functions wider outcomes. We searched Medline Embase using terms for "integrated care", "chronic disease" "multimorbidity". included involving levels organizations sectors. Risk bias was appraised, contents assessed Sustainable intEgrated modeLs multi-morbidity: delivery, FInancing performancE (SELFIE) conceptual framework. Effectiveness meta-analysis (access, continuity, comprehensiveness coordination) outcomes (patient health mortality, hospital admissions costs). Sub-group analyses were conducted types involvement. From 17,752 studies screened, 119 identified, which 69 (58%) involved Meta-analyses showed significant beneficial effects two function: access (effect size: 0.17, 95% CI 0.05–0.29) continuity 0.32, 0.14–0.50). For outcomes, only statistically found costs 0.02, 0.02–0.03). Integrated can have positive functions, but these benefits do not necessarily translate consistently

Language: Английский

---

Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 29(1), P. 55 - 61

Published: April 19, 2023

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods conducted condensed timeline meet the needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) those individuals, typically patient public partners, healthcare providers, policy-makers, who likely use from research, including RRs, make informed decisions about health policies, programmes practices. However, research suggests KU involvement is often limited overlooked, few include patients as KUs. Existing RR guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how when do so. This paper discusses importance ensure fit for purpose relevant decision-making. Opportunities planning, conduct knowledge translation outlined. Further, this describes various modes engaging during lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful distinct groups; an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive partners developing RRs. Although requires time, resources expertise, strive balance ‘rapid’ with meaningful first series led by Cochrane Reviews Methods Group further guide general methods.

Language: Английский

---

Frequency of use and adequacy of Cochrane risk of bias tool 2 in non‐Cochrane systematic reviews published in 2020: Meta‐research study

Research Synthesis Methods, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: 15(3), P. 430 - 440

Published: Jan. 23, 2024

Risk of bias (RoB) assessment is essential to the systematic review methodology. The new version Cochrane RoB tool for randomized trials (RoB 2) was published in 2019 address limitations identified since first 2008 and increase reliability assessments. This study analyzed frequency usage 2 adequacy reporting assessments non-Cochrane reviews 2020. meta-research included interventions For that used tool, we assessment. Among 3880 reviews, 1 most frequently (N = 2228; 57.4%), followed by 267; 6.9%). From 267 reported using 213 (79.8%) actually it. In 26 (12.2%) erroneous statements were indicate Only 20 (9.4%) presented a complete with detailed table answers all signaling questions. judgment risk not justified comment 158 (74.2%) reviews. 33 (14.5%) domains accompanying comment. (81.7%), inadequately assessed at level. conclusion, majority 2020 still tool. Many inadequately. Further studies about uptake use are needed.

Language: Английский

---

Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. bmjebm - 112722

Published: March 14, 2024

This paper, part of the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group series, offers guidance on determining when to conduct a rapid review (RR) instead full systematic (SR). While both types aim comprehensively synthesise evidence, RRs, conducted within shorter time frame typically 6 months or less, involve streamlined methods expedite process. The decision opt for an RR depends urgency research question, resource availability and impact outcomes. paper categorises scenarios where RRs are appropriate, including urgent decision-making, informing guidelines, assessing new technologies identifying evidence gaps. It also outlines instances may be inappropriate, cautioning against conducting them solely ease, quick publication only cost-saving motives. When deciding RR, it is crucial consider conceptual practical factors. These factors encompass needing timely consequences waiting SR, potential risks associated with incomplete risk not using synthesised in among other considerations. Key weigh include having clearly defined need, manageable scope access necessary expertise. Overall, this aims guide informed judgements about whether choose over SR based specific question context. Researchers decision-makers encouraged carefully trade-offs opting RRs.

Language: Английский

---

Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on assessing the certainty of evidence

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Journal Year: 2023, Volume and Issue: 29(1), P. 50 - 54

Published: April 19, 2023

This paper is part of a series methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review methods to accelerate process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods. addresses considerations for rating certainty evidence (COE) in RRs. We recommend full implementation GRADE (Grading Recommendations, Assessment, Development Evaluation) RRs if time resources allow. If or other do not permit GRADE, following recommendations can be considered: (1) limit COE main intervention comparator number outcomes critical benefits harms; (2) literature Delphi approach rate importance feasible, rely on informal judgements knowledge users, topic experts team members; (3) replace independent by two reviewers with single-reviewer verification second reviewer (4) effect estimates well-conducted are incorporated into an RR, existing grades such review. advise against changing definition domains considered

Language: Английский

---

Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Journal Year: 2024, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. bmjebm - 112899

Published: July 22, 2024

Rapid reviews (RRs) are produced using abbreviated methods compared with standard systematic (SR) to expedite the process for decision-making. This paper provides interim guidance support complete reporting of RRs. Recommendations emerged from a survey informed by empirical studies RR reporting, in addition collective experience. producers should use existing, robustly developed guidelines as foundation writing RRs: notably Preferred Reporting Items Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020; SRs), but also preferred items overviews (PRIOR) (reporting SRs) where SRs included RR. In addition, minimum set six were identified three pertaining addressing publication ethics. Authors be what priori-defined iterative used during conduct, distinguishes their an SR, knowledge user (eg, policymaker) involvement process. Explicitly deviations SR methods, including omitted steps, is important. The inclusion ethics reflects predominance non-journal published authorship byline corresponding author, acknowledging other contributors, expert peer review. As various formats may when packaging presenting information decision-makers, it practical think across explicitly linked documents made available open-access journal or repository that barrier-free. We encourage feedback community these we look develop consolidated list development PRISMA-RR.

Language: Английский

---

Rapid reviews methods series (paper 7): guidance on rapid scoping, mapping and evidence and gap map (‘Big Picture Reviews’)

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: unknown, P. bmjebm - 112389

Published: Feb. 4, 2025

Language: Английский

---

Training and education provided to local change champions within implementation trials: a rapid systematic review

Implementation Science, Journal Year: 2025, Volume and Issue: 20(1)

Published: Feb. 5, 2025

Abstract Background Translating research into clinical practice is challenging. One implementation intervention that supports translation employment of a change champion. It important to understand how individuals are prepared for the champion role. This rapid systematic review aimed identify education, training, and support provided in roles within trials. Method Rapid approach. We searched Scopus database reviews on champions, knowledge brokers, facilitators, practitioners. The most recent each topic were screened find eligible studies. To studies published after these reviews, we Medline, PsycINFO, OVID, CINAHL, ProQuest, SCOPUS, EBSCO. included randomised cluster controlled trials reported interventions healthcare settings involving local Results Fifteen included. Specific training was 12 (80%), but none incorporating adult learning principles their education program. Some form post-training 11 (73%). Only two content behaviour or organizational preparation Most programs not individualized, details poorly reported. Conclusions Training needs educational outcomes champions tends align with learning. More rigorous development reporting prepare evidence recommended. Registration PROSPERO registration number CRD42022368276.

Language: Английский

---