Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment
- 9 April 2008
- journal article
- review article
- Published by Cambridge University Press (CUP) in International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
- Vol. 24 (02), 133-139
- https://doi.org/10.1017/s0266462308080185
Abstract
Objectives:This review assessed current practice in the preparation of rapid reviews by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, both internationally and in the Australian context, and evaluated the available peer-reviewed literature pertaining to the methodology used in the preparation of these reviews.Methods:A survey tool was developed and distributed to a total of fifty International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members and other selected HTA organizations. Data on a broad range of themes related to the conduct of rapid reviews were collated, discussed narratively, and subjected to simple statistical analysis where appropriate. Systematic searches of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Australian Medical Index were undertaken in March 2007 to identify literature pertaining to rapid review methodology. Comparative studies, guidelines, program evaluations, methods studies, commentaries, and surveys were considered for inclusion.Results:Twenty-three surveys were returned (46 percent), with eighteen agencies reporting on thirty-six rapid review products. Axiomatic trends were identified, but there was little cohesion between organizations regarding the contents, methods, and definition of a rapid review. The twelve studies identified by the systematic literature search did not specifically address the methodology underpinning rapid review; rather, many highlighted the complexity of the area. Authors suggested restricted research questions and truncated search strategies as methods to limit the time taken to complete a review.Conclusions:Rather than developing a formalized methodology by which to conduct rapid reviews, agencies should work toward increasing the transparency of the methods used for each review. It is perhaps the appropriate use, not the appropriate methodology, of a rapid review that requires future consideration.Keywords
This publication has 7 references indexed in Scilit:
- End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impactInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2005
- Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findingsInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2004
- LITERATURE SEARCHING FOR RANDOMIZED CONTROLLED TRIALS USED IN COCHRANE REVIEWS: RAPID VERSUS EXHAUSTIVE SEARCHESInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2003
- Health technology assessment: history and demand.Published by Oxford University Press (OUP) ,2003
- HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT IN THE UNITED STATESInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2002
- THE USE AND IMPACT OF RAPID HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENTSInternational Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care, 2000
- Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of EnglandJournal of Clinical Effectiveness, 1997