Suppr超能文献

支持医疗保健和政策决策的快速综述项目:对流程和方法的描述性分析

Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods.

作者信息

Polisena Julie, Garritty Chantelle, Kamel Chris, Stevens Adrienne, Abou-Setta Ahmed M

机构信息

Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 600-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5S8, Canada.

Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8 M5, Canada.

出版信息

Syst Rev. 2015 Mar 14;4:26. doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Health care decision makers often need to make decisions in limited timeframes and cannot await the completion of a full evidence review. Rapid reviews (RRs), utilizing streamlined systematic review methods, are increasingly being used to synthesize the evidence with a shorter turnaround time. Our primary objective was to describe the processes and methods used internationally to produce RRs. In addition, we sought to understand the underlying themes associated with these programs.

METHODS

We contacted representatives of international RR programs from a broad realm in health care to gather information about the methods and processes used to produce RRs. The responses were summarized narratively to understand the characteristics associated with their processes and methods. The summaries were compared and contrasted to highlight potential themes and trends related to the different RR programs.

RESULTS

Twenty-nine international RR programs were included in our sample with a broad organizational representation from academia, government, research institutions, and non-for-profit organizations. Responses revealed that the main objectives for RRs were to inform decision making with regards to funding health care technologies, services and policy, and program development. Central themes that influenced the methods used by RR programs, and report type and dissemination were the imposed turnaround time to complete a report, resources available, the complexity and sensitivity of the research topics, and permission from the requestor.

CONCLUSIONS

Our study confirmed that there is no standard approach to conduct RRs. Differences in processes and methods across programs may be the result of the novelty of RR methods versus other types of evidence syntheses, customization of RRs for various decision makers, and definition of 'rapid' by organizations, since it impacts both the timelines and the evidence synthesis methods. Future research should investigate the impact of current RR methods and reporting to support informed health care decision making, the effects of potential biases that may be introduced with streamlined methods, and the effectiveness of RR reporting guidelines on transparency.

摘要

背景

医疗保健决策者常常需要在有限的时间框架内做出决策,无法等待全面的证据审查完成。快速综述(RRs)利用简化的系统综述方法,越来越多地被用于在更短的周转时间内综合证据。我们的主要目标是描述国际上用于开展快速综述的过程和方法。此外,我们试图了解与这些项目相关的潜在主题。

方法

我们联系了来自医疗保健广泛领域的国际快速综述项目的代表,以收集有关开展快速综述所使用的方法和过程的信息。对回复进行了叙述性总结,以了解与其过程和方法相关的特征。对总结进行了比较和对比,以突出与不同快速综述项目相关的潜在主题和趋势。

结果

我们的样本中包括29个国际快速综述项目,其组织代表广泛,涵盖学术界、政府、研究机构和非营利组织。回复显示,快速综述的主要目标是为医疗保健技术、服务和政策的资金决策、项目开发提供信息。影响快速综述项目所使用方法、报告类型和传播的核心主题包括完成报告的规定周转时间、可用资源、研究主题的复杂性和敏感性以及请求者的许可。

结论

我们的研究证实,开展快速综述没有标准方法。各项目在过程和方法上的差异可能是由于快速综述方法相对于其他类型证据综合方法的新颖性、为不同决策者定制快速综述、以及各组织对“快速”的定义,因为这会影响时间线和证据综合方法。未来的研究应调查当前快速综述方法和报告对支持明智的医疗保健决策的影响、简化方法可能引入的潜在偏倚的影响,以及快速综述报告指南对透明度的有效性。

相似文献

2
Avoiding and identifying errors in health technology assessment models: qualitative study and methodological review.
Health Technol Assess. 2010 May;14(25):iii-iv, ix-xii, 1-107. doi: 10.3310/hta14250.
4
The ISPOR Good Practices for Quality Improvement of Cost-Effectiveness Research Task Force Report.
Value Health. 2009 Nov-Dec;12(8):1086-99. doi: 10.1111/j.1524-4733.2009.00605.x. Epub 2009 Sep 10.
6
8
Towards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making.
J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005 Jul;10 Suppl 1:35-48. doi: 10.1258/1355819054308549.

引用本文的文献

2
Artificial intelligence and social accountability in the Canadian health care landscape: A rapid literature review.
PLOS Digit Health. 2024 Sep 12;3(9):e0000597. doi: 10.1371/journal.pdig.0000597. eCollection 2024 Sep.
5
Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review.
BMJ Evid Based Med. 2025 Jan 22;30(1):55-60. doi: 10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112722.
8
Conceptual and practical classification of research reviews and other evidence synthesis products.
Campbell Syst Rev. 2018 Jul 31;14(1):1-21. doi: 10.4073/cmdp.2018.1. eCollection 2018.
10
Predictive model-based interventions to reduce outpatient no-shows: a rapid systematic review.
J Am Med Inform Assoc. 2023 Feb 16;30(3):559-569. doi: 10.1093/jamia/ocac242.

本文引用的文献

2
Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014 Jan;30(1):20-27. doi: 10.1017/S0266462313000664. Epub 2014 Jan 22.
3
What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments.
Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012 Dec;10(4):397-410. doi: 10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x.
4
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods.
Syst Rev. 2012 Jun 9;1:28. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-28.
5
Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach.
Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1:10. doi: 10.1186/2046-4053-1-10.
6
Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews.
Implement Sci. 2010 Jul 19;5:56. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-5-56.
7
Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008 Spring;24(2):133-9. doi: 10.1017/S0266462308080185.
8
The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000 Spring;16(2):651-6. doi: 10.1017/s0266462300101205.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验