Abstract
BackgroundThe UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) reviews evidence about existing or potential population screening programmes using rapid review products called evidence summaries. We provide a case report as an example of how rapid reviews are developed within the UK NSC’s process, consider how the quality of rapid reviews should be assessed and ask whether the rapid review was an appropriate tool to inform the UK NSC’s decision-making process.MethodsWe present the rapid review approach taken by the commissioner and the reviewers to develop an evidence summary for vasa praevia (VP), which the UK NSC reappraised as part of its 3-yearly cycle for conditions where screening is currently not recommended. We apply the AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal checklist for systematic reviews, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and a published checklist of items to consider with a rapid review approach. As UK NSC evidence summaries do not include meta-analyses, any related AMSTAR 2 or PRISMA checklist items were considered inapplicable.ResultsThe evidence summary was available within the required timelines and highlighted little change from the previous review in terms of key evidence gaps relating to the epidemiology of VP, the screening test and the management pathway. Therefore, the UK NSC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a change in its previous recommendation against screening. The evidence summary scored moderately against the applicable AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA checklist items. Against the published checklist of items to consider with a rapid review approach, the evidence summary performed well.ConclusionsIn this case report, the use of a rapid review as part of the UK NSC’s process enabled a pragmatic approach to assessing the overall volume, quality and direction of literature on key questions relating to the viability of a population screening programme for VP. Based on our assessments of this single evidence summary, systematic review quality appraisal tools may undervalue rapid reviews. The validity of the methods used in this case report, as well as the wider generalisability of our insights relating to rapid review practice, reporting and quality assessment, requires analysis of a larger sample of rapid reviews.
Highlights
The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) reviews evidence about existing or potential population screening programmes using rapid review products called evidence summaries
We report the person-time required to produce the evidence summary, discuss the use of systematic review quality appraisal and reporting checklists when applied to this example of a rapid review and consider whether the evidence summary was an appropriate tool to be used by the UK NSC in their decision-making process
Person-power required The rapid review was commissioned in May 2016, protocol development commenced in late June 2016, and a first draft of the evidence summary relating to the 9 review questions was prepared in August 2016
Summary
The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) reviews evidence about existing or potential population screening programmes using rapid review products called evidence summaries. Rapid reviews aim to modify and expedite the processes and methods used in SLRs without compromising the trustworthiness of the final product [3, 4] Evaluation of these products has highlighted concerns related to both conduct and reporting when SLR quality assessment tools are applied to them, in the absence of rapid review-specific quality appraisal tools [5]. It has, been shown that end users of rapid reviews do not perceive them as substitutes for SLRs, and value them for a wider range of purposes than providing a definitive answer to a specific research question [3]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
