What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.

Jorge Barreto,Evelina Chapman,Michelle M Haby,John N Lavis,Ludovic Reveiz,Rachel Clark

doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7

Abstract

BackgroundRapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research. This rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies sought to answer the question: What are the best methodologies to enable a rapid review of research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice?MethodsThis rapid review utilised systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol including clear inclusion criteria (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015998). A comprehensive search strategy was used, including published and grey literature, written in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish, from 2004 onwards. Eleven databases and two websites were searched. Two review authors independently applied the eligibility criteria. Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. A narrative summary of the results is presented.ResultsFive systematic reviews and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) that investigated methodologies for rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. None of the systematic reviews were of sufficient quality to allow firm conclusions to be made. Thus, the findings need to be treated with caution. There is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting rapid reviews. While a wide range of ‘shortcuts’ are used to make rapid reviews faster than a full systematic review, the included studies found little empirical evidence of their impact on the conclusions of either rapid or systematic reviews. There is some evidence from the included RCT (that had a low risk of bias) that rapid reviews may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence for decision makers.ConclusionsGreater care needs to be taken in improving the transparency of the methods used in rapid review products. There is no evidence available to suggest that rapid reviews should not be done or that they are misleading in any way. We offer an improved definition of rapid reviews to guide future research as well as clearer guidance for policy and practice.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Highlights

Rapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research
Three of the systematic reviews reviewed articles on rapid review methods [18, 30, 32]. Two of these included a comparison of findings from rapid reviews and systematic reviews conducted for the same topic [18, 32]
We interpreted pack C as being a ‘rapid review’ for the purposes of this review as the authors state that it is based on a comprehensive search and critical appraisal of the best currently available literature, which included a Cochrane review, an overview of systematic reviews and randomised controlled trial (RCT), and additional RCTs but was likely to have been done in a short timeframe

Summary

Introduction

Rapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research. This rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies sought to answer the question: What are the best methodologies to enable a rapid review of research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice?. To achieve better translation of knowledge from research into policy and practice it is important to be aware of the barriers and facilitators that influence the use of research evidence in health policy and practice decision making [3,4,5,6,7,8]. The most frequently reported facilitators are collaboration between researchers and policymakers, improved relationships and skills [7], and research that accords with the beliefs, values, interests or practical goals and strategies of decision makers [10]

Methods

Results

Discussion

Conclusion