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
Rapid reviews methods series (paper 7): guidance on rapid scoping, mapping and evidence and gap map (‘Big Picture Reviews’)
BMJ evidence-based medicine,
Год журнала:
2025,
Номер
unknown, С. bmjebm - 112389
Опубликована: Фев. 4, 2025
Язык: Английский
Identifying and exploring patient engagement interventions for people diagnosed with lung cancer: A rapid systematic review
Lung Cancer,
Год журнала:
2025,
Номер
202, С. 108484 - 108484
Опубликована: Март 8, 2025
To
identify
and
synthesise
evidence
describing
patient
engagement
interventions
that
have
been
used
to
support
people
diagnosed
with
lung
cancer.
A
rapid
systematic
review
was
conducted
following
guidance
from
the
Cochrane
Rapid
Reviews
Methods
group
reported
using
Preferred
Reporting
Item
for
Systematic
Review
Meta-analysis
(PRISMA)
checklist.
Keyword
searches
were
performed
in
MEDLINE
supplemented
by
Google
Scholar
searches.
Searches
restricted
peer-reviewed
articles
high-income
countries
published
English.
Data
extracted
Template
Intervention
Description
Replication
(TIDieR)
checklist,
tabulated,
narratively
synthesised.
extraction
quality
assessment
two
independent
reviewers.
Thirty-four
studies
included
final
analysis.
Studies
show
a
positive
impact
of
across
range
outcomes
including
caregiver
knowledge,
activation,
decision
making.
Interventions
also
shown
reduce
healthcare
use,
symptom
severity,
improve
psychosocial
outcomes.
Barriers
implementing
included:
timing/delivery
interventions,
poor
digital
literacy,
system
technical
barriers,
uptake
adherence
advanced
patients.
Factors
supporting
intervention
implementation
participatory
research/co-production
approaches,
providing
training
those
delivering
involving
caregivers,
employing
broad
recruitment
strategies.
The
overall
risk
bias
ranged
moderate
high.
identified
demonstrate
significant
potential
enhancing
improving
cancer
Findings
this
will
design
future
help
engage
healthcare.
protocol
registered
on
International
Prospective
Register
(PROSPERO)
(CRD42024521052)
06/03/24.
Язык: Английский
Gardening initiatives as an approach to cancer prevention for children and youth
Public Health,
Год журнала:
2025,
Номер
242, С. 367 - 374
Опубликована: Апрель 7, 2025
Gardening
initiatives
may
be
used
to
address
modifiable
risk
factors
for
cancer
from
an
early
age.
This
review
synthesizes
evidence
on
the
effects
of
gardening
among
school-aged
children
and
youth.
Rapid
review.
A
rapid
was
conducted
in
March
2024
using
databases
(e.g.,
MEDLINE,
PubMed),
registers
ClinicalTrials.gov),
other
sources
Healthevidence.org,
Google
Scholar).
Two
reviewers
independently
screened
selected
articles
inclusion,
one
completed
quality
appraisal.
Peer-reviewed
studies
past
ten
years
schools,
daycares,
or
community
settings
high-income
countries
were
included.
Studies
had
report
health
outcomes
youth
(aged
0-18
years)
related
including:
nutrition
behaviors,
body
weight,
physical
activity
(PA),
sedentary
behavior,
psychosocial
factors,
ultraviolet
ray
(UVR)
behaviors.
resulted
forty-eight
included
studies.
Most
measured
PA.
Fewer
none
UVR
generally
led
positive
behaviors
improved
knowledge,
dietary
diversity),
increased
PA,
decreased
depression,
social
cohesion).
Effects
weight
abdominal
adiposity
inconclusive.
educational
could
help
prevent
by
improving
diet,
However,
more
rigorous,
longitudinal
are
needed
better
understand
their
effectiveness,
mechanisms,
long-term
impact
prevention
into
adulthood.
Язык: Английский
Key concepts in rapid reviews: an overview
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology,
Год журнала:
2024,
Номер
175, С. 111518 - 111518
Опубликована: Сен. 6, 2024
Язык: Английский
Reply
Occupational Medicine,
Год журнала:
2024,
Номер
74(6), С. 462 - 463
Опубликована: Июль 1, 2024
Conceptualizing Sleep Satisfaction: A Rapid Review
Behavioral Sciences,
Год журнала:
2024,
Номер
14(10), С. 942 - 942
Опубликована: Окт. 14, 2024
Good,
satisfying,
sleep
is
a
key
indicator
and
determinant
of
health
wellness.
However,
there
no
consensus
about
how
to
define
measure
good
sleep.
The
present
research
aimed
satisfaction
through
the
extant
literature
disentangle
it
from
quality,
conceptually
similar
construct.
Systematic
review
methods
were
adapted
for
rapid
approach.
entire
was
completed
in
eight
weeks.
Tabulation
coding
with
content
analysis
used
identify
categories
synthesize
findings.
A
systematic
process
generating
construct
definitions
followed.
Database
search
yielded
51
eligible
studies
(
Язык: Английский
Wie wir schnelle Evidenzsynthesen generieren und adaptieren
Public Health Forum,
Год журнала:
2024,
Номер
32(4), С. 383 - 385
Опубликована: Ноя. 26, 2024
Zusammenfassung
Die
Erstellung
einer
systematischen
Übersichtsarbeit
(SÜ)
dauert
durchschnittlich
ein
Jahr.
Entscheidungen
im
Gesundheitswesen
müssen
jedoch
oft
schnell
getroffen
werden.
Bei
Rapid
Reviews
werden
gezielt
methodische
Schwächen
in
Kauf
genommen
(Bearbeitungsdauer
1–6
Monate).
Neuartige
Formate
können
die
Bearbeitungszeit
auf
ca.
2
Wochen
reduzieren;
benötigen
mehr
Testung
für
Gesundheitssystemfragen.
Internationale
Zusammenarbeit
und
lokale
Adaptation
könnten
schnelle
Nutzbarkeit
von
SÜ
verbessern.