 |
 |
Hi Jon, Was your question triggered by this v. recent paper? *https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29864540 <https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/29864540>* *We discussed this in our information specialis'ts meeting this week at ScHARR! It does at least back up the idea that its very rare for a more streamlined approach to searching to lead to an opposite outcome for a review...* *C* On Thu, 11 Oct 2018 at 06:36, Jon Brassey <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > Hi All, > > I'm wondering how one could test the following so would welcome advice. > > Question: Assuming we have a finite resource for evidence synthesis which > is better 1 systematic review or, say, 5-10 rapid reviews? > > Context: There is an opportunity cost associated with doing the labour > intensive systematic reviews how do we know we are using this scarce > resource (of evidence synthesis resource) optimally? In the studies of RR v > SRs I have yet to see an example where a RR has got a 'wrong' answer (ie SR > says the intervention is good while the RR says bad - so a reversal in > conclusion) but there is sometimes variation in estimated effect size. This > variation is frequently small but sometimes it can move the effect from > significant to non-significant or vice versa. > > So, what method would you use to assess which gives most benefit for the > limited amount of resource? > > Best wishes > > jon > -- > Jon Brassey > Director, Trip Database <http://www.tripdatabase.com> > Honorary Fellow at CEBM <http://www.cebm.net>, University of Oxford > Creator, Rapid-Reviews.info > > > ------------------------------ > > To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following > link: > > https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1 > -- -- ***Please note I do not work on Fridays and work from home on Tuesdays*** *Claire Beecroft* *Programme Lead, MSc, PG Cert and PG Dip in International Health Technology Assessment, Pricing and Reimbursement* University Teacher and Information Specialist, ScHARR, University of Sheffield 0114 222 0701 | [log in to unmask] | https://www.sheffield.ac.uk/scharr/sections/ir/staff/clairebeecroft <http://twitter.com/mscihta> <http://uk.linkedin.com/in/claire-beecroft-49475813> <https://twitter.com/mscihta> Latest Tweet: <https://twitter.com/mscihta> Four Case Studies to Explore the Added Value of Oxford AHSN https://t.co/wRVybJtobT 15:04 Sep-13 <https://twitter.com/mscihta/statuses/775711883164786688> Follow @mscihta <https://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=mscihta> <https://twitter.com/?status=@mscihta&in_reply_to_status_id=775711883164786688> <https://twitter.com/?status=RT+@mscihta+Four+Case+Studies+to+Explore+the+Added+Value+of+Oxford+AHSN+https://t.co/wRVybJtobT> Get a signature like this: Click here! <http://ws-promos.appspot.com/r?rdata=eyJydXJsIjogImh0dHA6Ly93d3cud2lzZXN0YW1wLmNvbS9lbWFpbC1pbnN0YWxsP3dzX25jaWQ9NjcyMjk0MDA4JnV0bV9zb3VyY2U9ZXh0ZW5zaW9uJnV0bV9tZWRpdW09ZW1haWwmdXRtX2NhbXBhaWduPXByb21vXzU3MzI1Njg1NDg3Njk3OTIiLCAiZSI6ICI1NzMyNTY4NTQ4NzY5NzkyIn0=&u=681722556523351> Check out our blog at: http://scharrlibrary.blogspot.com/ Follow us on Twitter: http://twitter.com/#!/scharrlib Check out the HEDS blog at: http://www.scharrheds.blogspot.com/ <http://www.scharrheds.blogspot.com/> ######################################################################## To unsubscribe from the EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH list, click the following link: https://www.jiscmail.ac.uk/cgi-bin/webadmin?SUBED1=EVIDENCE-BASED-HEALTH&A=1