Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid;
Steingart, Karen R.;
Tricco, Andrea C.;
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara;
Kaunelis, David;
Alonso-Coello, Pablo;
Baxter, Susan;
Bossuyt, Patrick M.;
Emparanza, José Ignacio;
Zamora, Javier
Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey
You can manage bookmarks using lists, please log in to your user account for this.
Media type:
E-Article
Title:
Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey
Contributor:
Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid;
Steingart, Karen R.;
Tricco, Andrea C.;
Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara;
Kaunelis, David;
Alonso-Coello, Pablo;
Baxter, Susan;
Bossuyt, Patrick M.;
Emparanza, José Ignacio;
Zamora, Javier
imprint:
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, 2020
Published in:BMC Medical Research Methodology
Language:
English
DOI:
10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z
ISSN:
1471-2288
Origination:
Footnote:
Description:
<jats:title>Abstract</jats:title><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Background</jats:title>
<jats:p>Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews—they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Methods</jats:title>
<jats:p>We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Results</jats:title>
<jats:p>All participants (<jats:italic>N</jats:italic> = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively).</jats:p>
</jats:sec><jats:sec>
<jats:title>Conclusion</jats:title>
<jats:p>Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.</jats:p>
</jats:sec>