A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts

Lisa Hartling; Jeanne Marie Guise; Elisabeth Kato; Johanna Anderson; Suzanne Belinson; Elise Berliner; Donna M. Dryden; Robin Featherstone; Matthew D. Mitchell; Makalapua Motu'Apuaka; Hussein Noorani; Robin Paynter; Karen A. Robinson; Karen Schoelles; Craig A. Umscheid; Evelyn Whitlock

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036

A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts

Lisa Hartling, Jeanne Marie Guise, Elisabeth Kato, Johanna Anderson, Suzanne Belinson, Elise Berliner, Donna M. Dryden, Robin Featherstone, Matthew D. Mitchell, Makalapua Motu'Apuaka, Hussein Noorani, Robin Paynter, Karen A. Robinson, Karen Schoelles, Craig A. Umscheid, Evelyn Whitlock

School of Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Review article › peer-review

36 Scopus citations

Abstract

Objectives Describe characteristics of rapid reviews and examine the impact of methodological variations on their reliability and validity. Study Design and Setting We conducted a literature review and interviews with organizations that produce rapid reviews or related products to identify methods, guidance, empiric evidence, and current practices. Results We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations (production time, 5 minutes to 8 months). Methods differed from systematic reviews at all stages. As time frames increased, methods became more rigorous; however, restrictions on database searching, inclusion criteria, data extracted, and independent dual review remained. We categorized rapid products based on extent of synthesis. "Inventories" list what evidence is available. "Rapid responses" present best available evidence with no formal synthesis. "Rapid reviews" synthesize the quality of and findings from the evidence. "Automated approaches" generate meta-analyses in response to user-defined queries. Rapid products rely on a close relationship with end users and support specific decisions in an identified time frame. Limited empiric evidence exists comparing rapid and systematic reviews. Conclusions Rapid products have tremendous methodological variation; categorization based on time frame or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs.

Original language	English (US)
Pages (from-to)	1451-1462.e3
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	68
Issue number	12
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036
State	Published - Dec 2015

Keywords

Automation
Interviews
Methodology
Rapid reviews
Stakeholders
Systematic reviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Epidemiology

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036

Cite this

Hartling, L., Guise, J. M., Kato, E., Anderson, J., Belinson, S., Berliner, E., Dryden, D. M., Featherstone, R., Mitchell, M. D., Motu'Apuaka, M., Noorani, H., Paynter, R., Robinson, K. A., Schoelles, K., Umscheid, C. A., & Whitlock, E. (2015). A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 68(12), 1451-1462.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036

Hartling, L, Guise, JM, Kato, E, Anderson, J, Belinson, S, Berliner, E, Dryden, DM, Featherstone, R, Mitchell, MD, Motu'Apuaka, M, Noorani, H, Paynter, R, Robinson, KA, Schoelles, K, Umscheid, CA & Whitlock, E 2015, 'A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 68, no. 12, pp. 1451-1462.e3. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036

@article{6da024d5cbe3431fab2a5a6216e5d16d,

title = "A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts",

abstract = "Objectives Describe characteristics of rapid reviews and examine the impact of methodological variations on their reliability and validity. Study Design and Setting We conducted a literature review and interviews with organizations that produce rapid reviews or related products to identify methods, guidance, empiric evidence, and current practices. Results We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations (production time, 5 minutes to 8 months). Methods differed from systematic reviews at all stages. As time frames increased, methods became more rigorous; however, restrictions on database searching, inclusion criteria, data extracted, and independent dual review remained. We categorized rapid products based on extent of synthesis. {"}Inventories{"} list what evidence is available. {"}Rapid responses{"} present best available evidence with no formal synthesis. {"}Rapid reviews{"} synthesize the quality of and findings from the evidence. {"}Automated approaches{"} generate meta-analyses in response to user-defined queries. Rapid products rely on a close relationship with end users and support specific decisions in an identified time frame. Limited empiric evidence exists comparing rapid and systematic reviews. Conclusions Rapid products have tremendous methodological variation; categorization based on time frame or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs.",

keywords = "Automation, Interviews, Methodology, Rapid reviews, Stakeholders, Systematic reviews",

author = "Lisa Hartling and Guise, {Jeanne Marie} and Elisabeth Kato and Johanna Anderson and Suzanne Belinson and Elise Berliner and Dryden, {Donna M.} and Robin Featherstone and Mitchell, {Matthew D.} and Makalapua Motu'Apuaka and Hussein Noorani and Robin Paynter and Robinson, {Karen A.} and Karen Schoelles and Umscheid, {Craig A.} and Evelyn Whitlock",

note = "Funding Information: Funding disclosure and disclaimer: This manuscript is based on a project conducted by a working group with the Evidence-based Practice Center Program supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, Maryland through contracts to the following Evidence-based Practice Centers: University of Alberta (290-2012-00013-I), Blue Cross Blue Shield (290-2012-00010-I), ECRI- Penn (290-2012-00011-I), Kaiser (290-2012-00015-I), The Johns Hopkins University (290-2012-00007-I), and the Scientific Resource Center for the EPC Program (290201200004C). The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this manuscript should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.",

year = "2015",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036",

language = "English (US)",

volume = "68",

pages = "1451--1462.e3",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier USA",

number = "12",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts

AU - Hartling, Lisa

AU - Guise, Jeanne Marie

AU - Kato, Elisabeth

AU - Anderson, Johanna

AU - Belinson, Suzanne

AU - Berliner, Elise

AU - Dryden, Donna M.

AU - Featherstone, Robin

AU - Mitchell, Matthew D.

AU - Motu'Apuaka, Makalapua

AU - Noorani, Hussein

AU - Paynter, Robin

AU - Robinson, Karen A.

AU - Schoelles, Karen

AU - Umscheid, Craig A.

AU - Whitlock, Evelyn

N1 - Funding Information: Funding disclosure and disclaimer: This manuscript is based on a project conducted by a working group with the Evidence-based Practice Center Program supported by the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ), Rockville, Maryland through contracts to the following Evidence-based Practice Centers: University of Alberta (290-2012-00013-I), Blue Cross Blue Shield (290-2012-00010-I), ECRI- Penn (290-2012-00011-I), Kaiser (290-2012-00015-I), The Johns Hopkins University (290-2012-00007-I), and the Scientific Resource Center for the EPC Program (290201200004C). The findings and conclusions in this manuscript are those of the authors, who are responsible for its contents; the findings and conclusions do not necessarily represent the views of AHRQ. No statement in this manuscript should be construed as an official position of AHRQ or of the US Department of Health and Human Services. Publisher Copyright: © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

PY - 2015/12

Y1 - 2015/12

N2 - Objectives Describe characteristics of rapid reviews and examine the impact of methodological variations on their reliability and validity. Study Design and Setting We conducted a literature review and interviews with organizations that produce rapid reviews or related products to identify methods, guidance, empiric evidence, and current practices. Results We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations (production time, 5 minutes to 8 months). Methods differed from systematic reviews at all stages. As time frames increased, methods became more rigorous; however, restrictions on database searching, inclusion criteria, data extracted, and independent dual review remained. We categorized rapid products based on extent of synthesis. "Inventories" list what evidence is available. "Rapid responses" present best available evidence with no formal synthesis. "Rapid reviews" synthesize the quality of and findings from the evidence. "Automated approaches" generate meta-analyses in response to user-defined queries. Rapid products rely on a close relationship with end users and support specific decisions in an identified time frame. Limited empiric evidence exists comparing rapid and systematic reviews. Conclusions Rapid products have tremendous methodological variation; categorization based on time frame or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs.

AB - Objectives Describe characteristics of rapid reviews and examine the impact of methodological variations on their reliability and validity. Study Design and Setting We conducted a literature review and interviews with organizations that produce rapid reviews or related products to identify methods, guidance, empiric evidence, and current practices. Results We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations (production time, 5 minutes to 8 months). Methods differed from systematic reviews at all stages. As time frames increased, methods became more rigorous; however, restrictions on database searching, inclusion criteria, data extracted, and independent dual review remained. We categorized rapid products based on extent of synthesis. "Inventories" list what evidence is available. "Rapid responses" present best available evidence with no formal synthesis. "Rapid reviews" synthesize the quality of and findings from the evidence. "Automated approaches" generate meta-analyses in response to user-defined queries. Rapid products rely on a close relationship with end users and support specific decisions in an identified time frame. Limited empiric evidence exists comparing rapid and systematic reviews. Conclusions Rapid products have tremendous methodological variation; categorization based on time frame or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs.

KW - Automation

KW - Interviews

KW - Methodology

KW - Rapid reviews

KW - Stakeholders

KW - Systematic reviews

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84948710061&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84948710061&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036

M3 - Review article

C2 - 26278023

AN - SCOPUS:84948710061

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 68

SP - 1451-1462.e3

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

IS - 12

ER -

A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts

Abstract

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Other files and links

Fingerprint

Cite this