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

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

28 Citations (Scopus)

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 languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)1451-1462.e3
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume68
Issue number12
DOIs
StatePublished - Dec 1 2015

Fingerprint

Decision Making
Reproducibility of Results
Meta-Analysis
Databases
Interviews
Equipment and Supplies

Keywords

  • Automation
  • Interviews
  • Methodology
  • Rapid reviews
  • Stakeholders
  • Systematic reviews

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Epidemiology

Cite this

A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. / Hartling, Lisa; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Kato, Elisabeth; Anderson, Johanna; Belinson, Suzanne; Berliner, Elise; Dryden, Donna M.; Featherstone, Robin; Mitchell, Matthew D.; Motu'Apuaka, Makalapua; Noorani, Hussein; Paynter, Robin; Robinson, Karen A.; Schoelles, Karen; Umscheid, Craig A.; Whitlock, Evelyn.

In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, Vol. 68, No. 12, 01.12.2015, p. 1451-1462.e3.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Hartling, L, Guise, J-M, 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
Hartling, Lisa ; Guise, Jeanne-Marie ; Kato, Elisabeth ; Anderson, Johanna ; Belinson, Suzanne ; Berliner, Elise ; Dryden, Donna M. ; Featherstone, Robin ; Mitchell, Matthew D. ; Motu'Apuaka, Makalapua ; Noorani, Hussein ; Paynter, Robin ; Robinson, Karen A. ; Schoelles, Karen ; Umscheid, Craig A. ; Whitlock, Evelyn. / A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts. In: Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015 ; Vol. 68, No. 12. pp. 1451-1462.e3.
@article{f3cff80000c241a3ae2f8e814314effa,
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 Jeanne-Marie Guise 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",
year = "2015",
month = "12",
day = "1",
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

PY - 2015/12/1

Y1 - 2015/12/1

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 - Article

C2 - 26278023

AN - SCOPUS:84948710061

VL - 68

SP - 1451-1462.e3

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

SN - 0895-4356

IS - 12

ER -