Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews

Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence

Rapid review (RR) could accelerate the traditional systematic review (SR) process by simplifying or omitting steps using various shortcuts. With the increasing popularity of RR, numerous shortcuts had emerged, but there was no consensus on how to choose the most appropriate ones. This study conducted a literature search in PubMed from inception to December 21, 2023, using terms such as "rapid review" "rapid assessment" "rapid systematic review" and "rapid evaluation". We also scanned the reference lists and performed citation tracking of included impact studies to obtain more included studies. We conducted a narrative synthesis of all RR approaches, shortcuts and studies assessing their effectiveness at each stage of RRs. Based on the current evidence, we provided recommendations on utilizing certain shortcuts in RRs. Ultimately, we identified 185 studies focusing on summarizing RR approaches and shortcuts, or evaluating their impact. There was relatively sufficient evidence to support the use of the following shortcuts in RRs: limiting studies to those published in English-language; conducting abbreviated database searches (e.g., only searching PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and CENTRAL); omitting retrieval of grey literature; restricting the search timeframe to the recent 20 years for medical intervention and the recent 15 years for reviewing diagnostic test accuracy; conducting a single screening by an experienced screener. To some extent, the above shortcuts were also applicable to SRs. This study provided a reference for future RR researchers in selecting shortcuts, and it also presented a potential research topic for methodologists.

The Power of Rapid Reviews for Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action Gap in Evidence-Based Virtual Health Care

Despite the surge in popularity of virtual health care services as a means of delivering health care through technology, the integration of research evidence into practice remains a challenge. Rapid reviews, a type of time-efficient evidence synthesis, offer a potential solution to bridge the gap between knowledge and action. This paper aims to highlight the experiences of the Fraser Health Authority's Virtual Health team in conducting rapid reviews. This paper discusses the experiences of the Virtual Health team in conducting 15 rapid reviews over the course of 1.5 years and the benefit of involving diverse stakeholders including researchers, project and clinical leads, and students for the creation of user-friendly knowledge products to summarize results. The Virtual Health team found rapid reviews to be a valuable tool for evidence-informed decision-making in virtual health care. Involving stakeholders and focusing on implementation considerations are crucial for maximizing the impact of rapid reviews. Health care decision makers are encouraged to consider implementing rapid review processes to improve the translation of research evidence into practice, ultimately enhancing patient outcomes and promoting a culture of evidence-informed care.

Evidence syntheses to support decision-making related to the Covid-19 pandemic

The COVID-19 pandemic generated a large volume of scientific productions with different quality levels. The speed with which knowledge was produced and shared worldwide imposed on health management the challenge of seeking ways to identify the best available evidence to support its decisions. In response to this challenge, the Department of Science and Technology of the Brazilian Ministry of Health started offering a service to produce and provide scientific knowledge addressing priority public health issues in the pandemic scenario. Drug treatments, non-pharmacological measures, testing, reinfection and immunological response, immunization, pathophysiology, post-COVID syndrome and adverse events are among the topics covered. In this article, we discuss the strengths and lessons learned, as well as the challenges and perspectives that present a real example of how to offer the best scientific evidence in a timely manner in order to assist the decision-making process during a public health emergency.

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

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

Second Generation Long-Acting Injectable Antipsychotics in Schizophrenia: The Patient's Subjective Quality of Life, Well-Being, and Satisfaction

Schizophrenia (SZ) is among the twenty most disabling diseases worldwide. Subjective quality of life, well-being, and satisfaction are core elements to achieving personal recovery from the disorder. Long-acting injectable second-generation antipsychotics (SGA-LAIs) represent a valid therapeutic option for the treatment of SZ as they guarantee good efficacy and adherence to treatment. The aim of this rapid review is to summarize the evidence on the efficacy of SGA-LAIs in improving subjective quality of life, well-being, and satisfaction. The PubMed database was searched for original studies using SGA, LAI, risperidone, paliperidone, aripiprazole, olanzapine, SZ, and psychosis as keywords. Twenty-one studies were included: 13 clinical trials, 7 observational studies, and 1 post hoc analysis. It has been shown that SGA-LAIs bring an improvement to specific domains of subjective and self-rated quality of life, well-being, or satisfaction in prospective observational studies without a control arm and in randomized controlled trials versus placebo. The superiority of SGA-LAIs as compared with oral equivalents and haloperidol-LAI has been reported by some randomized controlled and observational studies. Although promising, the evidence is still limited because of the lack of studies and several methodological issues concerning the choice of the sample, the evaluation of the outcome variables, and the study design. New methodologically sound studies are needed.

Efficacy of Serotonin and Dopamine Activity Modulators in the Treatment of Negative Symptoms in Schizophrenia: A Rapid Review

Schizophrenia is among the fifteen most disabling diseases worldwide. Negative symptoms (NS) are highly prevalent in schizophrenia, negatively affect the functional outcome of the disorder, and their treatment is difficult and rarely specifically investigated. Serotonin-dopamine activity modulators (SDAMs), of which aripiprazole, cariprazine, brexpiprazole, and lumateperone were approved for schizophrenia treatment, represent a possible therapy to reduce NS. The aim of this rapid review is to summarize the evidence on this topic to make it readily available for psychiatrists treating NS and for further research. We searched the PubMed database for original studies using SDAM, aripiprazole, cariprazine, brexpiprazole, lumateperone, schizophrenia, and NS as keywords. We included four mega-analyses, eight meta-analyses, two post hoc analyses, and 20 clinical trials. Aripiprazole, cariprazine, and brexpiprazole were more effective than placebo in reducing NS. Only six studies compared SDAMs with other classes of antipsychotics, demonstrating a superiority in the treatment of NS mainly for cariprazine. The lack of specific research and various methodological issues, related to the study population and the assessment of NS, may have led to these partial results. Here, we highlight the need to conduct new methodologically robust investigations with head-to-head treatment comparisons and long-term observational studies on homogeneous groups of patients evaluating persistent NS with first- and second-generation scales, namely the Brief Negative Symptom Scale and the Clinical Assessment Interview for Negative Symptoms. This rapid review can expand research on NS therapeutic strategies in schizophrenia, which is fundamental for the long-term improvement of patients’ quality of life.

Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Women and Children Returning from Violent Extremist Contexts: A Rapid Review to Inform Program and Policy Development

This rapid review used a systematic approach to examine the available literature on rehabilitation and reintegration (R&R) programs for women and children returning from contexts of violent extremism, examining common assumptions, inputs, activities and outcomes across diverse settings. Fifty-one documents including peer reviewed articles and grey literature were included in the analysis. The most common program activities identified included mental health services, community level social programs, promoting school and vocational enrollment, regular health services, and parenting training & education, though there was a lack of consensus around core program components. The analysis points to the need for a robust set of inputs and resources to implement R&R programs including government officials, child welfare, mental health professionals, teachers, law enforcement, healthcare, community leaders, and extended family. The review also uncovered a number of gaps. This includes the need to create clear and analytically distinct definitions of rehabilitation and reintegration that are applicable and relevant to key stakeholders, delineating age-appropriate activities and outcomes for young children, youth, and adults, defining frameworks for service delivery and coordination of stakeholders, and placing R&R programs within existing domains of public safety and restorative justice.

Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study

OBJECTIVES

To describe perceptions of providing, and using rapid evidence, to support decision making by two national bodies (one public health policy and one front-line clinical practice) during the COVID-19 pandemic.

DESIGN

Descriptive qualitative study (March-August 2020): 25 semistructured interviews were conducted, transcribed verbatim and thematically analysed.

SETTING

Data were obtained as part of an evaluation of two Irish national projects; the Irish COVID-19 Evidence for General Practitioners project (General Practice (GP) project) which provided relevant evidence to address clinical questions posed by GPs; and the COVID-19 Evidence Synthesis Team (Health Policy project) which produced rapid evidence products at the request of the National Public Health Emergency Team.

PARTICIPANTS

Purposive sample of 14 evidence providers (EPs: generated and disseminated rapid evidence) and 11 service ssers (SUs: GPs and policy-makers, who used the evidence).

MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES

Participant perceptions.

RESULTS

The Policy Project comprised 27 EPs, producing 30 reports across 1432 person-work-days. The GP project comprised 10 members from 3 organisations, meeting 49 times and posting evidence-based answers to 126 questions. Four unique themes were generated. 'The Work' highlighted that a structured but flexible organisational approach to producing evidence was essential. Ensuring quality of evidence products was challenging, particularly in the context of absent or poor-quality evidence. 'The Use' highlighted that rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. Trust and credibility of EPs were key, however, communication difficulties were highlighted by SUs (eg, website functionality). 'The Team' emphasised that a highly skilled team, working collaboratively, is essential to meeting the substantial workload demands and tight turnaround time. 'The Future' highlighted that investing in resources, planning and embedding evidence synthesis support, is crucial to national emergency preparedness.

CONCLUSIONS

Rapid evidence products were considered invaluable to decision making. The credibility of EPs, a close relationship with SUs and having a highly skilled and adaptable team to meet the workload demands were identified as key strengths that optimised the utilisation of rapid evidence.

ETHICS APPROVAL

Ethical approval was obtained from the National Research Ethics Committee for COVID-19-related Research, Ireland.

Acupuncture and Related Therapies for Chronic Urticaria: A Critical Overview of Systematic Reviews

Background. Chronic urticaria (CU) can severely impair the quality of life. Acupuncture and related therapies have been widely used in the treatment of CU in China. This study aimed to summarize and critically evaluate the methodological and reporting quality of relevant systematic reviews (SRs) and present objective and comprehensive evidence on the effectiveness and safety of acupuncture and related therapies for CU. Methods. Eight electronic databases were searched from inception to October 2021 for SRs examining acupuncture and related therapies for CU, and gray literature was manually searched. Two authors independently identified SRs and extracted data. The methodological and reporting quality of these SRs were assessed by the Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews 2 (AMSTAR 2) tool and preferred reporting items for SRs and meta-analyses (PRISMA, 2020), respectively. In addition, the risk of bias in systematic reviews (ROBIS) was used to evaluate the risk of bias. The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development, and Evaluation (GRADE) framework was applied to evaluate the quality of evidence for outcome measures. Results. In total, 23 SRs, including a total of 11 outcome indicators, were published before October 2021. The AMSTAR-2 results showed that the methodological quality of all SRs was critically low; items 2, 3, 7, 9, 10, and 16 were found to have particularly low quality. For PRISMA, the reporting quality of the included SRs was unsatisfactory, and major reporting flaws were observed in the search strategy, synthesis method, certainly assessment, reporting biases, registrations, and financial support of the included SRs. For ROBIS, 22 SRs (95.65%) had a high risk of bias. Among the 55 outcomes assessed using the GRADE framework, there were 3 (5.45%) outcomes with moderate-quality evidence, 6 (10.91%) outcomes with low-quality evidence, and 46 (83.64%) outcomes with very low-quality evidence. We found the moderate quality of evidence indicating that the total effective rate and curing rate of the acupuncture group were higher than those of the western medicine group, and the recurrence rate was lower than that of the western medicine group. Conclusions. Acupuncture and related therapies for the treatment of CU are supported by low-quality evidence-based medicine. However, considering the poor quality of these SRs, we suggest that studies with more rigorous designs, larger sample sizes, and higher methodological and reporting quality are necessary to provide stronger evidence. Registration. The protocol for this study has been registered (PROSPERO registration number: CRD42021259131).

Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research

BACKGROUND

Transparent reporting of rapid reviews enables appropriate use of research findings and dissemination strategies can strengthen uptake and impact for the targeted knowledge users, including policy-makers and health system managers. The aim of this literature review was to understand reporting and dissemination approaches for rapid reviews and provide an overview in the context of health policy and systems research.

METHODS

A literature review and descriptive summary of the reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews was conducted, focusing on available guidance and methods, considerations for engagement with knowledge users, and optimizing dissemination. MEDLINE, PubMed, Google scholar, as well as relevant websites and reference lists were searched from January 2017 to March 2021 to identify the relevant literature with no language restrictions. Content was abstracted and charted.

RESULTS

The literature review found limited guidance specific to rapid reviews. Building on the barriers and facilitators to systematic review use, we provide practical recommendations on different approaches and methods for reporting and disseminating expedited knowledge synthesis considering the needs of health policy and systems knowledge users. Reporting should balance comprehensive accounting of the research process and findings with what is "good enough" or sufficient to meet the requirements of the knowledge users, while considering the time and resources available to conduct a review. Typical approaches may be used when planning the dissemination of rapid review findings; such as peer-reviewed publications or symposia and clear and ongoing engagement with knowledge users in crafting the messages is essential so they are appropriately tailored to the target audience. Consideration should be given to providing different products for different audiences. Dissemination measures and bibliometrics are also useful to gauge impact and reach.

CONCLUSIONS

Limited guidance specific to the reporting and dissemination of rapid reviews is available. Although approaches to expedited synthesis for health policy and systems research vary, considerations for the reporting and dissemination of findings are pertinent to all.

Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: more important than ever before

BACKGROUND

Due to the explosion in rapid reviews in the literature during COVID-19, their utility in universal health coverage and in other routine situations, there is now a need to document and further advance the application of rapid review methods, particularly in low-resource settings where a scarcity of resources may preclude the production of a full systematic review. This is the introductory article for a series of articles to further the discussion of rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making.

MAIN BODY

The series of papers builds on a practical guide on the conduct and reporting of rapid reviews that was published in 2019. The first paper provides an evaluation of a rapid review platform that was implemented in four centers in low-resource settings, the second paper presents approaches to tailor the methods for decision-makers through rapid reviews, the third paper focuses on selecting different types of rapid review products, and the fourth pertains to reporting the results from a rapid review.

CONCLUSION

Rapid reviews have a great potential to inform universal health coverage and global health security interventions, moving forward, including preparedness and response plans to future pandemics. This series of articles will be useful for both researchers leading rapid reviews, as well as decision-makers using the results from rapid reviews.

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders' perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders' perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Peer driven or driven peers? A rapid review of peer involvement of people who use drugs in HIV and harm reduction services in low- and middle-income countries

Introduction

Peer involvement of people who use drugs within HIV and harm reduction services is widely promoted yet under-utilised. Alongside political and financial barriers is a limited understanding of the roles, impacts, contexts and mechanisms for peer involvement, particularly in low- and middle-income settings. We conducted a rapid review of available literature on this topic.

Methods

Within a community-academic partnership, we used a rapid review approach, framed by realist theory. We used a network search strategy, focused on core journals and reference lists of related reviews. Twenty-nine studies were included. We developed thematic summaries framed by a realist approach of exploring interventions, their mechanisms, outcomes and how they are shaped by contexts.

Results

Reported outcomes of peer involvement included reduced HIV incidence and prevalence; increased service access, acceptability and quality; changed risk behaviours; and reduced stigma and discrimination. Mechanisms via which these roles work were trust, personal commitment and empathy, using community knowledge and experience, as well as ‘bridge’ and ‘role model’ processes. Contexts of criminalisation, under-resourced health systems, and stigma and discrimination were found to shape these roles, their mechanisms and outcomes. Though contexts and mechanisms are little explored within the literature, we identified a common theme across contexts, mechanisms and outcomes. Peer outreach interventions work through trust, community knowledge and expertise, and ‘bridge’ mechanisms (M) to counter criminalisation and constraining clinic and service delivery environments (C), contributing towards changed drug-using behaviours, increased access, acceptability and quality of harm reduction services and decreased stigma and discrimination (O).

Conclusion

Peer involvement in HIV and harm reduction services in low- and middle-income settings is linked to positive health outcomes, shaped by contexts of criminalisation, stigma, and resource scarcity. However, peer involvement is under-theorised, particularly on how contexts shape mechanisms and ultimately outcomes. Efforts to study peer involvement need to develop theory and methods to evaluate the complex mechanisms and contexts that have influence. Finally, there is a need to expand the range of peer roles, to embrace the capacities and expertise of people who use drugs.

A Rapid Review of the Measurement of Intrinsic Capacity in Older Adults

OBJECTIVES

This study aims to address the knowledge gap and summarise the measurement for intrinsic capacity for the five WHO domains across different populations. It specifically aims to identify measurement tools, methods used for computation of a composite intrinsic capacity index and factors associated with intrinsic capacity among older adults.

METHODS

We performed literature review in Medline, including search terms "aged" or "elderly" and "intrinsic capacity" for articles published from 2000 - 2020 in English. Studies which assessed intrinsic capacity in the five WHO domains were included. Information pertaining to study setting, methods used for measuring the domains of intrinsic capacity, computation methods for composite intrinsic capacity index, and details on tool validation were extracted.

RESULTS

Seven articles fulfilling the inclusion criteria were included in the review. Of these, the majority were conducted in community settings (n=5) and were retrospective studies (n=6). The most commonly used tools for assessing intrinsic capacity were gait speed test and chair stand test (locomotion); handgrip-strength and mini-nutritional assessment (vitality); Mini-Mental State Examination (cognition); Geriatric Depression Scale (GDS) and Center for Epidemiological Studies Depression Scale (CES-D) (psychological), and self-reported vision and health questionnaires (sensory). Among the tools used to operationalise the domains, we found variations and non-concordance, especially in the vitality and psychological domains, which make inter-study comparison difficult. Validated scales were less commonly used for vitality and sensory domains. Biomarkers were used for locomotion, vitality, and sensory domains. Self-reported measures were mostly used in the psychological and sensory domains. Three studies operationalised a global score for intrinsic capacity, whereby scores from the individual domains were used to create a composite intrinsic capacity index, using two approaches: a) Structural equation modelling, and b) Sub-scores for each domain which were combined either by arithmetic sum or average.

CONCLUSION

We identified considerable variations in measurement instruments and processes which are used to assess intrinsic capacity, especially among the vitality and psychological domains. A standardized intrinsic capacity composite score for clinical or community settings has not been operationalised yet. Further validation via prospective studies of the intrinsic capacity concept and computation of composite score using validated scales are needed.

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence).

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

False-negative results of initial RT-PCR assays for COVID-19: A systematic review

BACKGROUND

A false-negative case of severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) infection is defined as a person with suspected infection and an initial negative result by reverse transcription-polymerase chain reaction (RT-PCR) test, with a positive result on a subsequent test. False-negative cases have important implications for isolation and risk of transmission of infected people and for the management of coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19). We aimed to review and critically appraise evidence about the rate of RT-PCR false-negatives at initial testing for COVID-19.

METHODS

We searched MEDLINE, EMBASE, LILACS, as well as COVID-19 repositories, including the EPPI-Centre living systematic map of evidence about COVID-19 and the Coronavirus Open Access Project living evidence database. Two authors independently screened and selected studies according to the eligibility criteria and collected data from the included studies. The risk of bias was assessed using the Quality Assessment of Diagnostic Accuracy Studies (QUADAS-2) tool. We calculated the proportion of false-negative test results using a multilevel mixed-effect logistic regression model. The certainty of the evidence about false-negative cases was rated using the GRADE approach for tests and strategies. All information in this article is current up to July 17, 2020.

RESULTS

We included 34 studies enrolling 12,057 COVID-19 confirmed cases. All studies were affected by several risks of bias and applicability concerns. The pooled estimate of false-negative proportion was highly affected by unexplained heterogeneity (tau-squared = 1.39; 90% prediction interval from 0.02 to 0.54). The certainty of the evidence was judged as very low due to the risk of bias, indirectness, and inconsistency issues.

CONCLUSIONS

There is substantial and largely unexplained heterogeneity in the proportion of false-negative RT-PCR results. The collected evidence has several limitations, including risk of bias issues, high heterogeneity, and concerns about its applicability. Nonetheless, our findings reinforce the need for repeated testing in patients with suspicion of SARS-Cov-2 infection given that up to 54% of COVID-19 patients may have an initial false-negative RT-PCR (very low certainty of evidence).

SYSTEMATIC REVIEW REGISTRATION

Protocol available on the OSF website: https://tinyurl.com/vvbgqya.

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews

OBJECTIVES

To develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

Interim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided.

RESULTS

Based on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for systematic reviews is highlighted.

CONCLUSION

The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.

Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study

Background

Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice.

Methods

We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere.

Results

Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read.

Conclusions

Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored.

Protocol availability

The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7

Rapid Review to Inform the Rehabilitation and Reintegration of Child Returnees from the Islamic State

Background

An estimated 49,000 women and children who lived in the Islamic State are being held in the Al-Hol refugee camp in Syria. Several countries have repatriated some of these women and children, though most have thus far refused to do so. Many countries are asking whether it is possible to successfully rehabilitate and reintegrate this group and how the evidence base could inform their approach.

Objective

The overall objective of this paper is to inform the rehabilitation and reintegration of child returnees from the Islamic State by rapidly reviewing the evidence on children exposed to trauma and adversity.

Methods

A rapid review was conducted to identify pertinent evidence regarding outcomes, risk and protective factors, and interventions and to build a framework that could guide policies and practices. Prior work in the areas of refugee children, war-impacted children, child criminal gang members, child victims of maltreatment, and child victims of sex trafficking was reviewed. Evidence was collected and analyzed from 31 prior reviews and studies.

Findings

The Rehabilitation and Reintegration Intervention Framework (RRIF) incorporates five levels (individual, family, educational, community, and societal) and identifies five primary goals: 1) promoting individual mental health and well-being; 2) promoting family support; 3) promoting educational success; 4) promoting community support; and 5) improving structural conditions and protecting public safety. Implementing this framework requires public-private partnership with extensive civil society involvement.

Conclusions

Rehabilitation and reintegration programs should be based on the evidence of prior work with children exposed to trauma and adversity. RRIF defines a multi-level approach that encompasses promoting individual mental health and well-being, family support, educational success, community support, structural conditions, and public safety. Further multi-disciplinary research is needed to develop evidence in several identified areas concerning child health and developmental problems, family custody, faith and religiosity, and violent extremism assessment and prevention.

The semi-automation of title and abstract screening: a retrospective exploration of ways to leverage Abstrackr's relevance predictions in systematic and rapid reviews

BACKGROUND

We investigated the feasibility of using a machine learning tool's relevance predictions to expedite title and abstract screening.

METHODS

We subjected 11 systematic reviews and six rapid reviews to four retrospective screening simulations (automated and semi-automated approaches to single-reviewer and dual independent screening) in Abstrackr, a freely-available machine learning software. We calculated the proportion missed, workload savings, and time savings compared to single-reviewer and dual independent screening by human reviewers. We performed cited reference searches to determine if missed studies would be identified via reference list scanning.

RESULTS

For systematic reviews, the semi-automated, dual independent screening approach provided the best balance of time savings (median (range) 20 (3-82) hours) and reliability (median (range) proportion missed records, 1 (0-14)%). The cited references search identified 59% (n = 10/17) of the records missed. For the rapid reviews, the fully and semi-automated approaches saved time (median (range) 9 (2-18) hours and 3 (1-10) hours, respectively), but less so than for the systematic reviews. The median (range) proportion missed records for both approaches was 6 (0-22)%.

CONCLUSION

Using Abstrackr to assist one of two reviewers in systematic reviews saves time with little risk of missing relevant records. Many missed records would be identified via other means.

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

BACKGROUND

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.

METHODS

We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.

RESULTS

All participants (N = 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).

CONCLUSION

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.

Journal impact factor, trial effect size, and methodological quality appear scantly related: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

As systematic reviews' limited coverage of the medical literature necessitates decision-making based on unsystematic review, we investigated a possible advantage of systematic review (aside from dataset size and systematic analysis): does systematic review avoid potential bias in sampling primary studies from high impact factor journals? If randomized controlled trials (RCTs) reported in higher-impact journals present different treatment benefits than RCTs reported in lower-impact journals, readers who focus on higher-impact journals for their rapid literature reviews may introduce bias which could be mitigated by complete, systematic sampling.

METHODS

We randomly sampled Cochrane Library (20 July 2005) treatment reviews that measured mortality as a binary outcome, published in English or French, with at least five RCTs with one or more deaths. Our domain-based assessment of risk of bias included funding source, randomness of allocation sequence, blinding, and allocation concealment. The primary analysis employed logistic regression by a generalized linear model with a generalized estimating equation to estimate the association between various factors and publication in a journal with a high journal impact factor (JIF).

RESULTS

From the 29 included systematic reviews, 189 RCTs contributed data. However, in the primary analyses comparing RCT results within meta-analyses, there was no statistically significant association: unadjusted odds of greater than 50% mortality protection in high-JIF (> 5) journals were 1.4 (95% CI 0.42, 4.4) and adjusted, 2.5 (95% CI 0.6, 10). Elements of study quality were weakly, inconsistently, and not statistically significantly correlated with journal impact factor.

CONCLUSIONS

Journal impact factor may have little to no association with study results, or methodological quality, but the evidence is very uncertain.

Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES

Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence.

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence.

RESULTS

We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses.

CONCLUSION

Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.

Evaluation of an HIV-specific rapid response service for community-based organisations in Ontario, Canada

Background

To support AIDS service organisations and other community-based organisations’ use of research evidence to inform HIV-related programmes, services and policies, the Ontario HIV Treatment Network (OHTN) developed a Rapid Response Service. The final product of the rapid response process at the OHTN, which is more streamlined than that of traditional systematic reviews, consists of a detailed report answering questions regarding an HIV-specific issue and how the findings apply within the local context. In 2016, the OHTN conducted an evaluation to assess the effectiveness of its Rapid Response Service. This article reports on the development of this service as well as the results of the evaluation.

Methods

All rapid responses published between January 1, 2009, and September 30, 2016, by the OHTN (n = 102) were analysed using univariate analyses. Frequency distributions were determined for the following variables for each rapid response: populations observed, topics covered, requestor affiliations and number of downloads from the OHTN’s website. Requestors of rapid responses were also interviewed regarding perceived helpfulness and utility of the service and final products, and suggestions for changes to the service. Six-month follow-up interviews were conducted to determine how affiliated organisations used the evidence from the rapid response they requested.

Results

The 102 rapid responses published covered 14 different populations of interest. Topics covered included the HIV prevention, engagement and care cascade, determinants of health, syndemics, and comorbidities. Requestor affiliations consisted of AIDS service organisations, government agencies and policy-makers, non-HIV-focused community-based organisations, and hospitals, universities or health centres. Requestors perceived most aspects of the Rapid Response Service as very helpful and most frequently suggested that the rapid responses should provide recommendations. Follow-up interviews regarding the impact of rapid responses show that rapid responses have been used to assist organisations in numerous activities.

Conclusions

Organisations that have used the OHTN’s Rapid Response Service describe it as a valuable service useful for the development of programmes and policies. Improvements in capacity-building efforts may increase its utility. Describing the findings of this evaluation may serve as a reference for similar programmes to increase the use of research evidence among public health decision-makers.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0476-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Rapid network meta-analysis using data from Food and Drug Administration approval packages is feasible but with limitations

OBJECTIVE

To test rapid approaches that use Drugs@FDA (a public database of approved drugs) and ClinicalTrials.gov to identify trials and to compare these two sources with bibliographic databases as an evidence base for a systematic review and network meta-analysis (NMA).

STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING

We searched bibliographic databases, Drugs@FDA, and ClinicalTrials.gov for eligible trials on first-line glaucoma medications. We extracted data, assessed risk of bias, and examined the completeness and consistency of information provided by different sources. We fitted random-effects NMA models separately for trials identified from each source and for all unique trials from three sources.

RESULTS

We identified 138 unique trials including 29,394 participants on 15 first-line glaucoma medications. For a given trial, information reported was sometimes inconsistent across data sources. Journal articles provided the most information needed for a systematic review; trial registrations provided the least. Compared to an NMA including all unique trials, we were able to generate reasonably precise effect estimates and similar relative rankings for available interventions using trials from Drugs@FDA alone (but not ClinicalTrials.gov).

CONCLUSIONS

A rapid NMA approach using data from Drugs@FDA is feasible but has its own limitations. Reporting of trial design and results can be improved in both the drug approval packages and on ClinicalTrials.gov.

Systematic reviews of pharmacological and nonpharmacological treatments for patients with chronic urticaria: An umbrella systematic review

A wide range of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for chronic urticaria (CU) have been evaluated in systematic reviews (SRs). We conducted an umbrella review of SRs of the effectiveness and safety of pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for CU, which allow the findings of separate reviews to be compared and contrasted and thereby provide decision makers in healthcare with the evidence they need.We included SRs evaluating pharmacological and nonpharmacological interventions for CU. Comprehensive searches were conducted in 7 bibliographic databases, relevant journals up to July 2018. Two reviewers independently assessed the studies' relevance and quality. The assessment of multiple systematic reviews tool and grading of recommendations assessment, development and evaluation method was used to assess the methodological quality of the SRs and classify the quality of the outcomes.In total, 41 SRs were included. Thirty-seven reviews performed quantitative research syntheses, and 4 reviews performed qualitative research syntheses. The majority of SRs evaluated interventions based on combination therapies, antihistamines, traditional Chinese medicines, autohemotherapy, omalizumab, acupuncture, cyclosporine, and leukotriene receptor antagonist. Positive intervention outcomes were reported in the majority (75.32%) of the reviews. However, the methodological quality and evidence quality of the reviews were generally poor.There is some evidence to support a variety of interventions for CU. However, there was much heterogeneity in evidence quality among SRs. Many of the SRs had methodological weaknesses that make them vulnerable to bias. Moreover, there remained little information on the relative effectiveness of one intervention compared with another. Therefore, further SRs that adherence to strict scientific methods are necessary, and primary studies make comparisons between the different treatment options directly.

Next Steps in Improving Healthcare Value: AHRQ Evidence-based Practice Center Program-Applying the Knowledge to Practice to Data Cycle to Strengthen the Value of Patient Care

For more than 20 years, the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) Evidence-based Practice Center (EPC) Program has been identifying and synthesizing evidence to inform evidence-based healthcare. Recognizing that many healthcare settings continue to face challenges in disseminating and implementing evidence into practice, AHRQ's EPC program has also embarked on initiatives to facilitate the translation of evidence into practice and to measure and monitor how practice changes impact health outcomes. The program has structured its efforts around the three phases of the Learning Healthcare System cycle: knowledge, practice, and data. Here, we use a topic relevant to the field of hospital medicine-Clostridium difficile colitis prevention and treatment-as an exemplar of how the EPC program has used this framework to move evidence into practice and develop systems to facilitate continuous learning in healthcare systems.

Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation

BACKGROUND

Assessment of diagnostic tests, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of a patient's health status, has increasingly become a critical issue in health policy and decision-making. Diagnostic evidence, including the accuracy of a medical test for a target condition, is commonly appraised using standard systematic review methodology. Owing to the considerable time and resources required to conduct these, rapid reviews have emerged as a pragmatic alternative by tailoring methods according to the decision maker's circumstances. However, it is not known if streamlining methodological aspects has an impact on the validity of evidence synthesis. Furthermore, due to the particular nature and complexity of the appraisal of diagnostic accuracy, there is need for detailed guidance on how to conduct rapid reviews of diagnostic tests. In this study, we aim to identify the methods currently used by rapid review developers to synthesize evidence on diagnostic test accuracy, as well as to analyze potential shortcomings and challenges related to these methods.

METHODS

We will carry out a two-fold approach: (1) an international survey of professionals working in organizations that develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests, in terms of the methods and resources used by these agencies when conducting rapid reviews, and (2) semi-structured interviews with senior-level individuals to further explore and validate the findings from the survey and to identify challenges in conducting rapid reviews. We will use STATA 15.0 for quantitative analyses and framework analysis for qualitative analyses. We will ensure protection of data during all stages.

DISCUSSION

The main result of this research will be a map of methods and resources currently used for conducting rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, as well as methodological shortcomings and potential solutions in diagnostic knowledge synthesis that require further research.

Developing tools to enhance the use of systematic reviews for clinical care in health systems

We aimed to develop tools that can facilitate uptake of evidence summarised in systematic reviews by clinical decision makers in health systems. After conducting a systematic review on the management of anxiety in children, we interviewed health system representatives, clinicians and patients to ask about additional information needed for decision-making. Using stakeholders' feedback and literature searches for contextual and implementation information, we developed two tools (decision aids (DAs)), one for the health system and the second for the clinical encounter. This information mapped to factors of the GRADE (Grading of Recommendations, Assessment, Development and Evaluation) Evidence to Decision Framework. The health system DAs provided information on which patients are candidate for treatment, values and preferences, costs and resources, acceptability, impact on health equity, feasibility, drug dosing, alternative therapies, remission rates and prognosis. Health system stakeholders found the DA useful for clinical decision-making and generalisable to other conditions. The encounter DA was produced as cards containing information on issues that drive treatment decisions (effect on symptoms, effect on function, treatment burden, side effects and cost). Patients and parents prioritised the cards and chose the order in which these issues were discussed with clinician. The encounter DA was found to be helpful by patients, parents and clinicians. We conclude that the uptake of evidence summaries by health systems can be enhanced by developing tools that provide contextual and implementation information about clinical care. A dual approach addressing health system stakeholders as well as clinicians and patients is likely feasible and helpful.

The Use of Rapid Review Methods for the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force

Rapid review products are intended to synthesize available evidence in a timely fashion while still meeting the needs of healthcare decision makers. Various methods and products have been applied for rapid evidence syntheses, but no single approach has been uniformly adopted. Methods to gain efficiency and compress the review time period include focusing on a narrow clinical topic and key questions; limiting the literature search; performing single (versus dual) screening of abstracts and full-text articles for relevance; and limiting the analysis and synthesis. In order to maintain the scientific integrity, including transparency, of rapid evidence syntheses, it is imperative that procedures used to streamline standard systematic review methods are prespecified, based on sound review principles and empiric evidence when possible, and provide the end user with an accurate and comprehensive synthesis. The collection of clinical preventive service recommendations maintained by the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force, along with its commitment to rigorous methods development, provide a unique opportunity to refine, implement, and evaluate rapid evidence synthesis methods and add to an emerging evidence base on rapid review methods. This paper summarizes the U.S. Preventive Services Task Force's use of rapid review methodology, its criteria for selecting topics for rapid evidence syntheses, and proposed methods to streamline the review process.