Hi Jon,

I like the idea and am all for more software tools and automation approaches to support reviews. However, and touching on Ahmed’s point, how can a tool be developed to guide users through a process that no one really agrees on (yet)?  I guess you could say the same thing about all kinds of methods (and tools to support them), but the uncertainty and lack of consensus surrounding rapid reviews seems particularly complicated to develop specific tools for.

Thanks,

Chris.

Chris Marshall, Ph.D. Research Consultant York Health Economics Consortium Ltd Direct: +44 (0)1904 323436 Main: +44 (0)1904 323620 Fax: +44 (0)1904 323628 E: [log in to unmask] Visit YHEC Online
Address: YHEC, Enterprise House, Innovation Way, University of York, York, YO10 5NQ, United Kingdom
	YHEC is part of The MINERVA Network, an International Health Economics Network.
Save Paper - Do you really need to print this e-mail? This e-mail is for the use of the intended addressee only. If you receive this e-mail by mistake please delete it and notify the sender immediately. Privileged, confidential and/or copyright information may be contained in this e-mail and any attachments. You are not permitted to copy, forward, or disclose the information (or any part of it) contained in this message. To do so is prohibited.

On 13 February 2017 at 12:46, Jon Brassey <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Ahmed,

I agree with your comments about methodology.  I actually dislike the term rapid and systematic reviews, they seem broadly meaningless.  I see evidence synthesis as a continuum.  In the case of a drug effectiveness there is no 'cliff edge' from systematic to rapid - of acceptability to unacceptability.  I would also suggest on a continuum that reviews based on published journal articles are far from the highest quality (far from it).

Anyway, sticking with the thread, I actually want to create a rapid review 'wizard' to help guide people through the process and ultimately allow them to publish/share their reviews.  And, once published, allow others to contribute to further improve them and/or keep them up to date.  My latest thinking can be seen here https://rapid-reviews.info/2017/02/13/community-rapid-review-v3/.

Best wishes and thanks.

jon

On 13 February 2017 at 12:26, Ahmed Abou-Setta <[log in to unmask]> wrote:

Hi Jon,

 

Just noting on your statement/ question: 'what is the best methodology?', what I can tell you from my limited experience in this field is that there is no singular ‘best methodology’ or even range of methodologies for that matter, because the nature of ‘rapid reviews’ are not top down. Since the term ‘rapid review’ shares some of the concepts with ‘systematic review’, many (not pointing fingers at anyone specifically) assume that they are just traditional, high-quality reviews of the literature but just performed ‘rapidly’. If they had been called ‘hocus pocus studies’ there would be no expectation to meet the methodological rigor associated with ‘Cochrane style’ systematic reviews. In reality, each organization that conducts/ uses rapid reviews has generated its own guidance and steps in conducting these fast-tracked products and they if viewed from an objective lens can be seen as ranging from a literature search to a full high quality review. The only item I have found to unite all ‘rapid reviews’ is that they should be conducted in a minimal timeframe compared with traditional systematic reviews. Having said that, I’ve completed reviews in as little as 24-hours (those reviews were all published as traditional systematic reviews).

 

So back to your initiative, are you looking to create something unique to the needs of your local decision-makers or more broadly trying to set guidance for the production of evidence synthesis by organizations?

 

In all cases, I wish you the best of luck and look forward to seeing how this develops.

 

Best wishes,

 

Ahmed

 

 

 

 

From: Evidence based health (EBH) [mailto:EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK] On Behalf Of Jon Brassey
Sent: Monday, February 13, 2017 2:01 AM
To: EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH@JISCMAIL.AC.UK
Subject: Community Rapid Review System

 

Hi All,

 

I've been involved in clinical question answering for twenty years now; it's the reason I created the Trip Database (to help support my work).  Me and my various teams have answered over 10,000 clinical questions and these are, to my mind, rapid reviews.  I'm also acutely aware that Trip is widely used to support clinical question answering.  It has seemed unfortunate that people answering their questions do not share the information with others.

 

The rise of so-called 'rapid reviews' has been charted on another site I started https://rapid-reviews.info/ (see graph here https://rapid-reviews.info/2016/12/16/the-rise-of-rapid-reviews-growth-compared-with-systematic-reviews/).  But one of the most frequent questions I ask is about 'what is the best methodology?'

 

So, trying to pull these two threads into a single initiative I have started planning a community rapid review system.  It will be created (later on this year) to support users producing rapid reviews and the intention is that it will be a supportive, nurturing and educational environment .  

 

I'm pulling together a group of interested people to help shape the thinking around the system, so if you're interested then let me know.  

 

Best wishes

 

jon

 

--

Jon Brassey

Director, Trip Database

Honorary Fellow at CEBM, University of Oxford

Creator, Rapid-Reviews.info

 

--

Jon Brassey

Director, Trip Database

Honorary Fellow at CEBM, University of Oxford

Creator, Rapid-Reviews.info