Thanks Jon,
This is well stated and much appreciated
Amy
On 4/24/12 5:16 AM, "Jon Brassey" <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>Hi All,
>
>A couple of weeks back I asked about the literature comparing rapid
>versus systematic reviews. The messages I've taken from the review
>are below but my conclusion would be that transparency is the key.
>Being clear in communicating the methods used and also in
>communicating the likely effect of the methodological short-cuts.
>
>I've posted a longer blog on the topic
>http://blog.tripdatabase.com/2012/04/search-was-undertaken-to-identify.htm
>l
>
>This is by no means the end of the matter, far from it as there's a
>lack of research evidence and also it's just my messages (and I'm
>coming at this topic with my own particular bias).
>
>BW
>
>jon
>
>--
>Jon Brassey
>TRIP Database
>http://www.tripdatabase.com
>TILT
>http://tilt.tripdatabase.com
>
>
>
>
>1) The notion of a rapid-review is ill-defined. However, introducing
>one methodology isnšt necessarily appropriate. What is important is
>transparency behind the process.
>
>2)The tension between speed and accuracy is a common theme.
>
>3) Rapid reviews tend to look at a focused question while systematic
>reviews will typically look at broader topics. Also, they tend to
>focus on efficacy or effectiveness while not be used to examine
>safety, economics or ethics.
>
>4) Meta-analyses are often not undertaken in rapid reviews, so no
>effect sizes given typically just a sign of an interventions effect.
>Any results are less generalisable and less certain.
>
>5) Trial quality assessment is important, poor quality studies are
>likely to overestimate the benefits of a therapy or the value of a
>test.
>
>6) The conclusions between a rapid review and a systematic review do
>not typically differ. The extra effort undertaken by carrying out
>a systematic review may not greatly impact the final conclusions.
>
>7) Rapid reviews, when compared with systematic reviews occasionally
>differ. In the papers that compared the rates of difference between
>rapid reviews and systematic reviews were 4/39, 1/14, and 1/6.
>
|