57 Evidence into practice: novel approaches to underpinning evidence-based innovations in care

2018 ◽  
Vol 8 (3) ◽  
pp. 382.1-382
Author(s):  
Mala Mann ◽  
Annmarie Nelson ◽  
Amanda Woodward ◽  
Ishrat Islam ◽  
Anthony Byrne
Keyword(s):  
Palliative Care ◽  
Resource Constraints ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Research Centre ◽  
List Type ◽  
Systematic Review Methodology ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Evidence Review

BackgroundDeveloping and implementing novel models of care requires a robust approach to identifying and assessing existing evidence. Rapid reviews have emerged as an efficient approach. There is a growing number of rapid review ‘methods’ but no accepted standardised methodology. We describe the methodological options and an example the Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS) where streamlined systematic review methodology is used to conduct rapid reviews requested by clinicians/clinical services.AimsTo describe evidence synthesis options including PaCERS for producing rapid evidence summaries on questions of direct importance to service delivery. To identify related methodological challenges.MethodsWe examine various rapid review methods and describe in full PaCERS methodology. This uses a focussed search strategy across a limited set of databases and other sources. Study selection data extraction and critical appraisal are performed independently by at least two reviewers. Results are published online using a template co-produced with users which describes key clinical messages evidence quality and summaries of included studies.ResultsWe will describe the pros and cons of conducting rapid reviews and highlight methodology development unique to PaCERS. We will discuss specific issues encountered during the review process to produce rigorous reviews in a short time frame for palliative services.ConclusionRapid reviews have tremendous methodological variation however they are an important tool for evidence-informed decision making especially when time resource constraints and health needs are an issue. Therefore using rapid reviews can be used in implementing new models of palliative care.Reference. Wales Cancer Research Centre. Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS)2016. Available at: http://palliativecare.walescancerresearchcentre.com/palliative-care-evidence-review-service/ [Accessed: 30 May 2018]

scholarly journals A protocol for rapid evidence synthesis into soil loosening as an intervention to ameliorate compaction caused by dairy farming and the impacts of this for productivity and sustainability

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Kendall ◽  
Amy Taylor ◽  
Mark Reed ◽  
Gavin Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Dairy Production ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Data Synthesis

This is a protocol for a rapid review of the effectiveness of soil loosening to ameliorate compaction caused by cattle treading from dairy production on UK dairy farms. The review will synthesise relevant literature that explores the impacts that can be derived from mechanical soil loosening for improved soil quality, productivity (i.e. yield) and the environment. The protocol outlines the rationale, objectives, inclusion criteria, search strategy and screening processes for the meta-analysis, and the plans for data extraction, risk of bias and data synthesis approaches.

scholarly journals A protocol for rapid evidence synthesis into soil loosening as an intervention to ameliorate compaction caused by dairy farming and the impacts of this for productivity and sustainability

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Helen Kendall ◽  
Amy Taylor Kendall ◽  
Mark Reed ◽  
Gavin Stewart
Keyword(s):  
Search Strategy ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Meta Analysis ◽  
Relevant Literature ◽  
Risk Of Bias ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Dairy Production ◽  
Inclusion Criteria ◽  
Data Synthesis

This is a protocol for a rapid review of the effectiveness of soil loosening to ameliorate compaction caused by cattle treading from dairy production on UK dairy farms. The review will synthesise relevant literature that explores the impacts that can be derived from mechanical soil loosening for improved soil quality, productivity (i.e. yield) and the environment. The protocol outlines the rationale, objectives, inclusion criteria, search strategy and screening processes for the meta-analysis, and the plans for data extraction, risk of bias and data synthesis approaches.

DEFINING RAPID REVIEWS: A MODIFIED DELPHI CONSENSUS APPROACH

2016 ◽  
Vol 32 (4) ◽  
pp. 265-275 ◽  
Author(s):  
Shannon E. Kelly ◽  
David Moher ◽  
Tammy J. Clifford
Keyword(s):  
Decision Maker ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Synthesis Process ◽  
Free Text ◽  
Delphi Consensus ◽  
Modified Delphi ◽  
Rapid Reviews

Objectives: Rapid reviews are characterized as an accelerated evidence synthesis approach with no universally accepted methodology or definition. This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to develop a comprehensive set of defining characteristics for rapid reviews that may be used as a functional definition.Methods: Expert panelists with knowledge in rapid reviews and evidence synthesis were identified. In the first round, panelists were asked to answer a seventeen-item survey addressing a variety of rapid review topics. Results led to the development of statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews that were circulated to experts for agreement in a second survey round and further revised in a third round. Consensus was reached if ≥70 percent of experts agreed and there was stability in free-text comments.Results: A panel of sixty-six experts participated. Consensus was reached on ten of eleven statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews. According to the panel, rapid reviews aim to meet the requirements and timelines of a decision maker and should be conducted in less time than a systematic review. They use a variety of approaches to accelerate the evidence synthesis process, tailor the methods conventionally used to carry out systematic reviews, and use the most rigorous methods that the delivery time frame will allow.Conclusions: This study achieved consensus on ten statements describing the defining characteristics of rapid reviews based on the opinion of a panel of knowledgeable experts. Areas of disagreement were also highlighted. Findings emphasize the role of the decision maker and stress the importance of transparent reporting.

scholarly journals 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

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Claire Beecher ◽  
Elaine Toomey ◽  
Beccy Maeso ◽  
Caroline Whiting ◽  
Derek C. Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

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.

PP100 Rapid Evidence Assessment In Hospital Health Technology Assessment

2018 ◽  
Vol 34 (S1) ◽  
pp. 103-104
Author(s):  
Sylvain L'Espérance ◽  
Marc Rhainds ◽  
Alice Nourrisat ◽  
Martin Coulombe ◽  
Sylvain Bussières
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Critical Appraisal ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Health Technology ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Local Context ◽  
Health Decision Making ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
Study Selection ◽  
Health Decision

Introduction:Systematic reviews (SRs) are the most valid and reliable scientific evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. However, substantial resources and months are required to conduct such a review. Most hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) units don't have the time and the academic team to produce SRs. Rapid evidence assessment (REA) may represent, in this local context, an interesting avenue. The aim was to evaluate characteristics of REA and their impacts on healthcare decision making.Methods:A SR was performed in several databases and grey literature to search data on REA including Mini-HTA and rapid reviews methodologies through March 2017. Data selection, extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent researchers. Outcomes were about REA's methodology including question, search strategy, inclusion criteria, study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, critical appraisal and impacts on decision making.Results:Twelve publications on REA have been included. More similarities were found in the methodology between rapid review and SR than with Mini-HTA. Shortcuts in performing rapid reviews included evaluation scope, number of databases, gray literature websites, studies design mainly SR, reviewers number, critical appraisal and production time (3 to 6 months). Study selection and data extraction by two independent reviewers in rapid reviews were seen in thirty-four percent to thirty-eight percent and ten percent to twenty-two percent, respectively. Furthermore, assessment quality was optional. Although it is performed within a short timeframe (2 months), methodology to conduct Mini-HTA is not well defined in the literature. The scope is mainly to support decision making in the introduction of new medical devices. Impacts of REA on local health decision making process are not well documented.Conclusions:Methodology to conduct REA is quite diverse. According to the data available, rapid review is a more robust methodology for HB-HTA producers than Mini-HTA. Although impacts were not well reported, rapid reviews could be more useful to support health decision making in local context.

scholarly journals 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

2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 80
Author(s):  
Claire Beecher ◽  
Elaine Toomey ◽  
Beccy Maeso ◽  
Caroline Whiting ◽  
Derek C. Stewart ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Health Care ◽  
Systematic Reviews ◽  
Priority Setting ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
High Quality ◽  
Rapid Reviews ◽  
James Lind Alliance ◽  
Research Questions ◽  
Priority Setting Partnership

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.

scholarly journals Rapid reviews as an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in education

2021 ◽  
Vol 19 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Sabine Wollscheid ◽  
Janice Tripney
Keyword(s):  
Decision Making ◽  
Evidence Synthesis ◽  
Synthesis Method ◽  
Time Frame ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Informed Decision ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Informed Decision Making ◽  
Postgraduate Students ◽  
Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews using abbreviated systematic review methods are of increasing importance for evidence-informed decision-making in education, although there is little guidance about the most suitable approach. Three recently completed rapid review reports are compared to inform discussions on the utility of this type of review in education and to highlight appropriate methods for producing evidence syntheses in a limited time frame. Rapid review methods need to be chosen to fit the needs of the review, which involves: thinking broadly about different kinds of team experience and expertise; estimating the size and nature of the literature to be reviewed; considering the review purpose and nature of the topic; choosing an appropriate synthesis method for the review purpose, evidence base and reviewers’ expertise; fully describing the review approach, and discussing the potential limitations of chosen methods; and understanding the anticipated audiences and tailoring outputs accordingly. Rapid reviews to address urgent and high-priority questions provide the benefits of timeliness and reduced resource requirements. However, it is crucial to understand caveats and limitations to the rapid conduct of evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes. This article offers guidance to support researchers, postgraduate students and commissioners who wish to conduct rapid reviews in a transparent and systematic way, addressing complex questions of relevance to evidence-informed decision-making in education.

scholarly journals Measuring frailty in younger populations: a rapid review of evidence

BMJ Open ◽  
2021 ◽  
Vol 11 (3) ◽  
pp. e047051
Author(s):  
Gemma F Spiers ◽  
Tafadzwa Patience Kunonga ◽  
Alex Hall ◽  
Fiona Beyer ◽  
Elisabeth Boulton ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Patient Outcomes ◽  
Predictive Validity ◽  
Data Extraction ◽  
Grey Literature ◽  
Frailty Index ◽  
Study Data ◽  
Rapid Review ◽  
Eligibility Criteria ◽  
Adult Age ◽  
The Impact

ObjectivesFrailty is typically assessed in older populations. Identifying frailty in adults aged under 60 years may also have value, if it supports the delivery of timely care. We sought to identify how frailty is measured in younger populations, including evidence of the impact on patient outcomes and care.DesignA rapid review of primary studies was conducted.Data sourcesFour databases, three sources of grey literature and reference lists of systematic reviews were searched in March 2020.Eligibility criteriaEligible studies measured frailty in populations aged under 60 years using experimental or observational designs, published after 2000 in English.Data extraction and synthesisRecords were screened against review criteria. Study data were extracted with 20% of records checked for accuracy by a second researcher. Data were synthesised using a narrative approach.ResultsWe identified 268 studies that measured frailty in samples that included people aged under 60 years. Of these, 85 studies reported evidence about measure validity. No measures were identified that were designed and validated to identify frailty exclusively in younger groups. However, in populations that included people aged over and under 60 years, cumulative deficit frailty indices, phenotype measures, the FRAIL Scale, the Liver Frailty Index and the Short Physical Performance Battery all demonstrated predictive validity for mortality and/or hospital admission. Evidence of criterion validity was rare. The extent to which measures possess validity across the younger adult age (18–59 years) spectrum was unclear. There was no evidence about the impact of measuring frailty in younger populations on patient outcomes and care.ConclusionsLimited evidence suggests that frailty measures have predictive validity in younger populations. Further research is needed to clarify the validity of measures across the adult age spectrum, and explore the utility of measuring frailty in younger groups.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document