Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez; Karen Steingart; Andrea C. Tricco; Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit; David Kaunelis; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Susan Baxter; Patrick M. Bossuyt; José Ignacio Emparanza; Javier Zamora

doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez, Karen Steingart, Andrea C. Tricco, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, David Kaunelis, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Susan Baxter, Patrick M. Bossuyt, José Ignacio Emparanza, Javier Zamora

Clinical Sciences

Liverpool School of Tropical Medicine

Research output: Contribution to journal › Article › peer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background

Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews—they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.

Methods

We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.

Results

All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively).

Conclusion

Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.

Original language	English
Article number	115
Journal	BMC Medical Research Methodology
Volume	20
Issue number	1
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z
Publication status	Published - 13 May 2020

Keywords

Decision-making
Diagnosis
Knowledge synthesis
Rapid reviews
Tests

Access to Document

10.1186/s12874-020-01004-zLicence: CC BY

KS BMCFinal published version, 536 KBLicence: CC BY

Cite this

Arevalo-Rodriguez, I., Steingart, K., Tricco, A. C., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Kaunelis, D., Alonso-Coello, P., Baxter, S., Bossuyt, P. M., Emparanza, J. I., & Zamora, J. (2020). Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 20(1), Article 115. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z

@article{85462fd5330e4cc0bf9cb34f73967aa0,

title = "Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey",

abstract = "BackgroundRapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews—they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.MethodsWe developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.ResultsAll participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90\% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92\%) and the use of limits on the search (96\%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20\%, respectively).ConclusionOur survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.",

keywords = "Decision-making, Diagnosis, Knowledge synthesis, Rapid reviews, Tests",

author = "Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez and Karen Steingart and Tricco, \{Andrea C.\} and Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit and David Kaunelis and Pablo Alonso-Coello and Susan Baxter and Bossuyt, \{Patrick M.\} and Emparanza, \{Jos{\'e} Ignacio\} and Javier Zamora",

year = "2020",

month = may,

day = "13",

doi = "10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z",

language = "English",

volume = "20",

journal = "BMC Medical Research Methodology",

issn = "1471-2288",

publisher = "BioMed Central Ltd",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

AU - Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid

AU - Steingart, Karen

AU - Tricco, Andrea C.

AU - Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara

AU - Kaunelis, David

AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo

AU - Baxter, Susan

AU - Bossuyt, Patrick M.

AU - Emparanza, José Ignacio

AU - Zamora, Javier

PY - 2020/5/13

Y1 - 2020/5/13

N2 - BackgroundRapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews—they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.MethodsWe developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.ResultsAll participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively).ConclusionOur survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.

AB - BackgroundRapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews—they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.MethodsWe developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.ResultsAll participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively).ConclusionOur survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.

KW - Decision-making

KW - Diagnosis

KW - Knowledge synthesis

KW - Rapid reviews

KW - Tests

U2 - 10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z

DO - 10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z

M3 - Article

SN - 1471-2288

VL - 20

JO - BMC Medical Research Methodology

JF - BMC Medical Research Methodology

IS - 1

M1 - 115

ER -

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

Abstract

Keywords

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this