Abstract
Objectives
There are many rapid review methods; however, there is little pragmatic guidance on
which methods to select. This study aimed to reach consensus among international rapid
review experts outlining areas to consider when selecting approaches for rapid reviews.
Study Design and Setting
A two-round modified online Delphi survey was conducted between May and July 2018.
Participants were asked to rank the importance of a predefined list of 19 items. A
consensus definition of at least 70% agreement for each item was decided a priori.
Results
Thirty experts from ten countries participated in round 1 and 24 in round 2. During
round 1, consensus was reached on all items. One additional item on quality assessment
was suggested by respondents and comments suggested wording changes to improve clarity
and understanding of the tool. Respondents in the second round indicated a high level
of importance and all 20 items achieved consensus. These items addressed interaction
with commissioners, scoping and searching the evidence-base, data extraction and synthesis
methods, and reporting of rapid review methods.
Conclusion
International consensus was reached to produce the SelecTing Approaches for Rapid
Reviews (STARR) decision tool for planning rapid reviews and will lead to improved
shared understanding between review teams and review commissioners.
Keywords
To read this article in full you will need to make a payment
Purchase one-time access:
Academic & Personal: 24 hour online accessCorporate R&D Professionals: 24 hour online accessOne-time access price info
- For academic or personal research use, select 'Academic and Personal'
- For corporate R&D use, select 'Corporate R&D Professionals'
Subscribe:
Subscribe to Journal of Clinical EpidemiologyAlready a print subscriber? Claim online access
Already an online subscriber? Sign in
Register: Create an account
Institutional Access: Sign in to ScienceDirect
References
- Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews.Implement Sci. 2010; 5: 56
- How to conduct systematic reviews more expeditiously?.Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 160
- A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts.J Clin Epidemiol. 2015; 68: 1451-14562.e3
- Higgins J.P.T. Green S. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration,
2011 (Available at)www.handbook.cochrane.orgDate accessed: March 4, 2019
- Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods.Syst Rev. 2015; 4: 26
- A scoping review of rapid review methods.BMC Med. 2015; 13: 224
- Redefining rapid reviews: a flexible framework for restricted systematic reviews.BMJ Evid Based Med. 2018; 23: 201-203
- An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods.J Clin Epidemiol. 2016; 70: 61-67
- A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews.J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 96: 23-34
- Comparison of a full systematic review versus rapid review approaches to assess a newborn screening test for tyrosinemia type 1.Res Synth Methods. 2017; 8: 475-484
- Methods for a rapid systematic review and metaanalysis in evaluating selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors for premature ejaculation.Evid Policy. 2017; 13: 517-538
- The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016; 16: 108
- From evidence to action - rapid review methods for HTA (Workshop, WS23).(Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Annual Meeting. Vancouver, Canada)2018 (Available at)https://www.xcdsystem.com/htai/program/TSmTaZQ/Date accessed: March 4, 2019
Negro A, Camerlingo M, Maltoni S,Trimaglio F. Challenges of rapid reviews in HTA - case study from an Italian region (Abstract PP097). Health Technology Assessment International (HTAi) Annual Meeting. Rome, Italy; 2017 International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care. 2017; 33 (Special issue S1): 117-118.
- The Delphi technique: making sense of consensus.Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007; 12: 1-8
- Consulting the oracle: ten lessons from using the Delphi technique in nursing research.J Adv Nurs. 2006; 53: 205-212
- Studies of independence and conformity: 1. A minority of one against a unanimous majority.Psychol Monogr Gen Appl. 1956; 70: 1-70
- Behavioral study of obedience.J Abnorm Psychol. 1963; 67: 371-378
- Stability of response characteristics of a Delphi panel: application of bootstrap data expansion.BMC Med Res Methodol. 2005; 5: 37
- Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique.J Adv Nurs. 2000; 32: 1008-1015
- Using thematic analysis in psychology.Qual Res Psychol. 2006; 3: 77-101
- Lack of preregistered analysis plans allows unacceptable data mining for and selective reporting of consensus in Delphi studies.J Clin Epidemiol. 2018; 99: 96-105
- Defining consensus: a systematic review recommends methodologic criteria for reporting of Delphi studies.J Clin Epidemiol. 2014; 67: 401-409
- Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development.Health Technol Assess. 1998; 2: 1-88
- The Delphi method as a research tool: an example, design considerations and applications.Inf Manag. 2004; 42: 15-29
Article info
Publication history
Published online: June 08, 2019
Accepted:
June 4,
2019
Footnotes
Conflict of interest: None.
Identification
Copyright
© 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
