快速审查研究证据的最佳方法是什么?对审查和初步研究进行系统审查。

IF 5 2区 生物学 Q1 MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY
Michelle M. Haby, Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto, Jenny Yeon Hee Kim, Sasha Peiris, Cristián Mansilla, Marcela Torres, Diego Emmanuel Guerrero-Magaña, Ludovic Reveiz
{"title":"快速审查研究证据的最佳方法是什么?对审查和初步研究进行系统审查。","authors":"Michelle M. Haby,&nbsp;Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto,&nbsp;Jenny Yeon Hee Kim,&nbsp;Sasha Peiris,&nbsp;Cristián Mansilla,&nbsp;Marcela Torres,&nbsp;Diego Emmanuel Guerrero-Magaña,&nbsp;Ludovic Reveiz","doi":"10.1002/jrsm.1664","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p>Rapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision-maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full-text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies.</p>","PeriodicalId":226,"journal":{"name":"Research Synthesis Methods","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":5.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-09-11","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1664","citationCount":"0","resultStr":"{\"title\":\"What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies\",\"authors\":\"Michelle M. Haby,&nbsp;Jorge Otávio Maia Barreto,&nbsp;Jenny Yeon Hee Kim,&nbsp;Sasha Peiris,&nbsp;Cristián Mansilla,&nbsp;Marcela Torres,&nbsp;Diego Emmanuel Guerrero-Magaña,&nbsp;Ludovic Reveiz\",\"doi\":\"10.1002/jrsm.1664\",\"DOIUrl\":null,\"url\":null,\"abstract\":\"<p>Rapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision-maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full-text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies.</p>\",\"PeriodicalId\":226,\"journal\":{\"name\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"volume\":null,\"pages\":null},\"PeriodicalIF\":5.0000,\"publicationDate\":\"2023-09-11\",\"publicationTypes\":\"Journal Article\",\"fieldsOfStudy\":null,\"isOpenAccess\":false,\"openAccessPdf\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/epdf/10.1002/jrsm.1664\",\"citationCount\":\"0\",\"resultStr\":null,\"platform\":\"Semanticscholar\",\"paperid\":null,\"PeriodicalName\":\"Research Synthesis Methods\",\"FirstCategoryId\":\"99\",\"ListUrlMain\":\"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1664\",\"RegionNum\":2,\"RegionCategory\":\"生物学\",\"ArticlePicture\":[],\"TitleCN\":null,\"AbstractTextCN\":null,\"PMCID\":null,\"EPubDate\":\"\",\"PubModel\":\"\",\"JCR\":\"Q1\",\"JCRName\":\"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY\",\"Score\":null,\"Total\":0}","platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Research Synthesis Methods","FirstCategoryId":"99","ListUrlMain":"https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1664","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"生物学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

摘要

快速综述方法旨在促进系统综述的快速进行,以满足决策者的需求,同时保持综述的质量和可信度。本系统综述旨在确定进行快速综述的不同方法捷径对综述结果偏倚风险(RoB)的影响。征集综述和主要研究的综述阶段包括:编写方案、制定问题、纳入标准、检索、筛选、数据提取、RoB 评估、综合和报告。我们在 2022 年 4 月检索了 11 个电子数据库,并进行了一些补充检索。审稿人两人一组,对纳入的综述和研究进行筛选、选择、数据提取和 RoB 评估。我们纳入了 15 篇系统综述、7 篇范围界定综述和 65 项主要研究。我们发现,快速综述中常用的几种捷径可能会增加结果的RoB。这些捷径包括基于发表日期的限制、使用单一电子数据库作为研究来源、使用单一审稿人筛选标题和摘要、根据全文选择研究以及提取数据。快速综述的作者在报告使用这些捷径时应保持透明,并承认这些捷径可能会导致结果出现偏差。本综述还强调了可以节省时间但不会增加偏倚风险的捷径。无论是系统综述还是快速综述,都需要进一步研究更快的方法来准确提取数据和评估 RoB,并制定更精确的检索策略。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。

What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies

What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies

Rapid review methodology aims to facilitate faster conduct of systematic reviews to meet the needs of the decision-maker, while also maintaining quality and credibility. This systematic review aimed to determine the impact of different methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews on the risk of bias (RoB) of the results of the review. Review stages for which reviews and primary studies were sought included the preparation of a protocol, question formulation, inclusion criteria, searching, selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, synthesis, and reporting. We searched 11 electronic databases in April 2022, and conducted some supplementary searching. Reviewers worked in pairs to screen, select, extract data, and assess the RoB of included reviews and studies. We included 15 systematic reviews, 7 scoping reviews, and 65 primary studies. We found that several commonly used shortcuts in rapid reviews are likely to increase the RoB in the results. These include restrictions based on publication date, use of a single electronic database as a source of studies, and use of a single reviewer for screening titles and abstracts, selecting studies based on the full-text, and for extracting data. Authors of rapid reviews should be transparent in reporting their use of these shortcuts and acknowledge the possibility of them causing bias in the results. This review also highlights shortcuts that can save time without increasing the risk of bias. Further research is needed for both systematic and rapid reviews on faster methods for accurate data extraction and RoB assessment, and on development of more precise search strategies.

求助全文
通过发布文献求助,成功后即可免费获取论文全文。 去求助
来源期刊
Research Synthesis Methods
Research Synthesis Methods MATHEMATICAL & COMPUTATIONAL BIOLOGYMULTID-MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES
CiteScore
16.90
自引率
3.10%
发文量
75
期刊介绍: Research Synthesis Methods is a reputable, peer-reviewed journal that focuses on the development and dissemination of methods for conducting systematic research synthesis. Our aim is to advance the knowledge and application of research synthesis methods across various disciplines. Our journal provides a platform for the exchange of ideas and knowledge related to designing, conducting, analyzing, interpreting, reporting, and applying research synthesis. While research synthesis is commonly practiced in the health and social sciences, our journal also welcomes contributions from other fields to enrich the methodologies employed in research synthesis across scientific disciplines. By bridging different disciplines, we aim to foster collaboration and cross-fertilization of ideas, ultimately enhancing the quality and effectiveness of research synthesis methods. Whether you are a researcher, practitioner, or stakeholder involved in research synthesis, our journal strives to offer valuable insights and practical guidance for your work.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信