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

BMJ, Год журнала: 2024, Номер unknown, С. e076335 - e076335

Опубликована: Фев. 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.

Язык: Английский

---

Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Год журнала: 2023, Номер 28(6), С. 418 - 423

Опубликована: Апрель 19, 2023

This paper is part of a series methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG). reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review (SR) methods to accelerate process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible ensure integrity. addresses considerations around acceleration study selection, data extraction risk bias (RoB) assessment in RRs. If RR being undertaken, teams should consider using one or more following shortcuts: screen proportion (eg, 20%) records dually at title/abstract level until sufficient reviewer agreement achieved, then proceed with single-reviewer screening; same approach for full-text conduct single-data only on most relevant points single-RoB important outcomes, second person verifying RoB completeness correctness. Where available, extract assessments an existing SR that meets eligibility criteria.

Язык: Английский

---

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

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Год журнала: 2023, Номер 29(1), С. 55 - 61

Опубликована: Апрель 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.

Язык: Английский

---

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

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Год журнала: 2024, Номер unknown, С. bmjebm - 112722

Опубликована: Март 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.

Язык: Английский

---

Proposed Nutrition Competencies for Medical Students and Physician Trainees

JAMA Network Open, Год журнала: 2024, Номер 7(9), С. e2435425 - e2435425

Опубликована: Сен. 30, 2024

Importance In 2022, the US House of Representatives passed a bipartisan resolution (House Resolution 1118 at 117th Congress [2021-2022]) calling for meaningful nutrition education medical trainees. This was prompted by increasing health care spending attributed to growing prevalence nutrition-related diseases and substantial federal funding via Medicare that supports graduate education. March 2023, professional organizations agreed identify competencies Objective To recommend inclusion in improve patient population health. Evidence Review The research team conducted rapid literature review existing published between July 2013 2023. Additional were identified from learning objectives selected nutrition, culinary medicine, teaching kitchen curricula; dietetic core competencies; team–generated de novo competencies. An expert panel 22 subject matter experts 15 residency program directors participated modified Delphi process completed 4 rounds voting reach consensus on recommended competencies, level which they should be included, recommendations monitoring implementation evaluation these Findings A total articles met criteria competency extraction yielded 187 Through gray other sources, researchers 167 additional 354 These compiled refined prior voting. After voting, 36 recommendation: 30 both undergraduate levels, 2 only, only. Competencies fell into following themes: foundational knowledge, assessment diagnosis, communication skills, public health, collaborative support treatment specific conditions, indications referral. panelists (97%) assessed as part licensing board certification examinations. Conclusions Relevance represent US-based effort use establish students physician will require an iterative institutional prioritization, refinement, current future educational curricula well licensure

Язык: Английский

---

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

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Год журнала: 2023, Номер 29(1), С. 50 - 54

Опубликована: Апрель 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

Язык: Английский

---

Rapid review methods series: Guidance on the use of supportive software

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Год журнала: 2024, Номер 29(4), С. 264 - 271

Опубликована: Янв. 19, 2024

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. guides how supportive software for RRs.We strongly encourage throughout RR production. Specifically, we recommend (1) using collaborative online platforms that enable working in parallel, allow real-time project management centralise details; (2) automation support, but not entirely replace human reviewer judgement (3) being reporting methodology potential risk bias due software.

Язык: Английский

---

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

BMJ evidence-based medicine, Год журнала: 2024, Номер unknown, С. bmjebm - 112899

Опубликована: Июль 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.

Язык: Английский

---

Effects of Microplastic Exposure on Human Digestive, Reproductive, and Respiratory Health: A Rapid Systematic Review

Environmental Science & Technology, Год журнала: 2024, Номер unknown

Опубликована: Дек. 18, 2024

Microplastics are ubiquitous environmental contaminants for which there documented human exposures, but is a paucity of research evaluating their impacts on health. We conducted rapid systematic review using the "Navigation Guide" method. searched four databases in July 2022 and April 2024 with no restriction date. included studies predefined eligibility criteria that quantitatively examined association microplastic exposure any health outcomes. amended after screening prioritized digestive, reproductive, respiratory outcomes further evaluation. three observational examining reproductive (

Язык: Английский

---

Respiratory Syncytial Virus Vaccination Is Associated With Increased Odds of Preterm Birth

Acta Paediatrica, Год журнала: 2025, Номер unknown

Опубликована: Янв. 20, 2025

ABSTRACT Aim To analyse whether respiratory syncytial virus (RSV) vaccination during pregnancy increases the odds of preterm birth. Methods A rapid review and meta‐analysis was performed. The main outcome risk (gestational week less than 37) fixed‐effects model used to pooled ratios (OR) with 95% confidence intervals (CI). Evidence certainty assessed according GRADE. Results We included six randomised controlled trials 17 656 births two observational studies 3446 births. for birth were increased in (OR 1.17, CI 1.02–1.34). No evidence a difference seen 0.93, 0.69–1.25). Combined, these showed 1.13, 1.00–1.27). rated be moderate. When restricted market‐approved vaccine, seemed RCTs 1.21, 0.98–1.49). Conclusion Based on available evidence, RSV seems associated needs continuous population‐level safety data monitoring perinatal outcomes early phases vaccine rollouts detect possible signals further confirm magnitude effect

Язык: Английский

---