Hostname: page-component-7dd5485656-7jgsp Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2025-10-31T06:11:08.541Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

DEFINING RAPID REVIEWS: A MODIFIED DELPHI CONSENSUS APPROACH

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  11 October 2016

Shannon E. Kelly Open the ORCID record for Shannon E. Kelly [Opens in a new window] ,
David Moher Open the ORCID record for David Moher [Opens in a new window]  and
Tammy J. Clifford
Shannon E. Kelly
Affiliation:
School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa Cardiovascular Research Methods Centre, University of Ottawa Heart Institute skelly@ottawaheart.ca
David Moher
Affiliation:
School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, Clinical Epidemiology Program
Tammy J. Clifford
Affiliation:
School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa CADTH
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: Rapid reviews are characterized as an accelerated evidence synthesis approach with no universally accepted methodology or definition. This modified Delphi consensus study aimed to develop a comprehensive set of defining characteristics for rapid reviews that may be used as a functional definition.

Methods: Expert panelists with knowledge in rapid reviews and evidence synthesis were identified. In the first round, panelists were asked to answer a seventeen-item survey addressing a variety of rapid review topics. Results led to the development of statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews that were circulated to experts for agreement in a second survey round and further revised in a third round. Consensus was reached if ≥70 percent of experts agreed and there was stability in free-text comments.

Results: A panel of sixty-six experts participated. Consensus was reached on ten of eleven statements describing the characteristics of rapid reviews. According to the panel, rapid reviews aim to meet the requirements and timelines of a decision maker and should be conducted in less time than a systematic review. They use a variety of approaches to accelerate the evidence synthesis process, tailor the methods conventionally used to carry out systematic reviews, and use the most rigorous methods that the delivery time frame will allow.

Conclusions: This study achieved consensus on ten statements describing the defining characteristics of rapid reviews based on the opinion of a panel of knowledgeable experts. Areas of disagreement were also highlighted. Findings emphasize the role of the decision maker and stress the importance of transparent reporting.

Keywords

Rapid reviewsDefinitionDecision makingMethodologyDelphiKnowledge synthesisTime factors

Information

Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 32 , Issue 4 , 2016 , pp. 265 - 275
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2016 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Article purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

REFERENCES

1. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. http://handbook.cochrane.org/ (accessed September 7, 2016).Google Scholar
2. Popay, J, Rogers, A, Williams, G. Rationale and standards for the systematic review of qualitative literature in health services research. Qual Health Res. 1998;8:341–351.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
3. Morton, S, Levit, L, Berg, A, Eden, J. Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. Washington, DC: National Academies Press; 2011.Google Scholar
4. Schünemann, HJ, Moja, L. Reviews: Rapid! rapid! rapid!. . . and systematic. Syst Rev. 2015;4:4.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Bero, L, Busuttil, G, Farquhar, C, et al. Measuring the performance of the Cochrane library. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:Ed000048.Google ScholarPubMed
6. Pai, M, McCulloch, M, Gorman, JD, et al. Systematic reviews and meta-analyses: An illustrated, step-by-step guide. Natl Med J India. 2004;17:86–95.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Hailey, DM. The influence of technology assessments by advisory bodies on health policy and practice. Health Policy. 1993;25:243–254.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Ganann, R, Ciliska, D, Thomas, H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. Harker, J, Kleijnen, J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in health technology assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10:397–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Khangura, S, Konnyu, K, Cushman, R, Grimshaw, J, Moher, D. Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
11. Hartling, L, Guise, JM, Kato, E, et al. AHRQ comparative effectiveness reviews. EPC methods: An exploration of methods and context for the production of rapid reviews. Rockville, MD: Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2015.Google Scholar
12. Featherstone, RM, Dryden, DM, Foisy, M, et al. Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: An analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Syst Rev. 2015;4:50.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. Hartling, L, Chisholm, A, Thomson, D, Dryden, DM. A descriptive analysis of overviews of reviews published between 2000 and 2011. PLoS One. 2012;7:e49667.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
14. Moher, D, Liberati, A, Tetzlaff, J, Altman, DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. PLoS Med. 2009;6:e1000097.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
15. Shamseer, L, Moher, D, Clarke, M, et al. Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: Elaboration and explanation. BMJ. 2015;349:g7647.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Tricco, AC, Antony, J, Zarin, W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
17. Kamel, C, Mann, J. Rapid evidence reviews: The CADTH experience [Poster]. International Cochrane Colloquium, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. [Internet] 2013.Google Scholar
18. Khangura, S, Polisena, J, Clifford, TJ, Farrah, K, Kamel, C. Rapid review: An emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:20–27.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
19. Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133–139.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
20. Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: Validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:1037–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
21. Abrami, PC, Borokhovski, E, Bernard, RM, et al. Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence. Evid Policy. 2010;6:371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
22. Polisena, J, Garritty, C, Kamel, C, Stevens, A, Abou-Setta, AM. Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: A descriptive analysis of processes and methods. Syst Rev. 2015;4:26.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
23. Garrity, C. Information sharing session on rapid review initiatives. CADTH Rapid Reviews Summit, Vancouver, BC. [Internet] February 2015. https://www.cadth.ca/sites/default/files/events/Chantelle-Garrity_RR-Initiatives_Feb-4-2015.pdf (accessed September 9, 2015).Google Scholar
24. Merlin, T, Tamblyn, D, Ellery, B. What's in a name? Developing definitons for common health technology assessment product types of the International Network of Agencies for Health technology Assessment (INAHTA). Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:430–437.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
25. Boulkedid, R, Abdoul, H, Loustau, M, Sibony, O, Alberti, C. Using and reporting the Delphi method for selecting healthcare quality indicators: A systematic review. PLoS One. 2011;6:e20476.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
26. Lilja, KK, Laakso, K, Palomki, J, eds. Using the Delphi method. Technology management in the energy smart world (PICMET), pp. 1-10. IEEE CS 2011.Google Scholar
27. Okoli, C, Pawlowski, SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manage. 2004;42:15–29.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
28. Heiko, A. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2012;8:1525–1536.Google Scholar
29. Thangaratinam, S, Shakila, Redman CWE. The Delphi technique. Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;7:120–125.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
30. Hsu, CC, Sandford, BA. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12:1–8.Google Scholar
31. Hasson, F, Keeney, S, McKenna, H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:1008–1015.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
32. FluidSurveys (web-based survey oftware). 2014. www.FluidSurveys.com (accessed May 23, 2015).Google Scholar
33. SOFTWARE: FluidSurveys. 2015. www.FluidSurveys.com (accessed January 15, 2015).Google Scholar
34. McKenna, HP. The Delphi technique: A worthwhile research approach for nursing? J Adv Nurs. 1994;19:1221–1225.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
35. NVivo. Version 10. Copyright QSR International Pty Ltd; 2014.Google Scholar
36. Hailey, D, Corabian, P, Harstall, C, Schneider, W. The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:651–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
37. Coates, V. Keynote address: Rapid reviews and their impact on future directions for health technology assessment. Vancouver, BC: CADTH Rapid Reviews Summit; [Internet] February 2015.Google Scholar
38. Sandelowski, M. Reading, writing and systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2008;64:104–110.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
39. Shamseer, L, Moher, D. Planning a systematic review? Think protocols (Web Blog Commentary). BioMed Central Blog. January 5, 2015.Google Scholar
40. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. University of York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; January 2009.Google Scholar
41. Campbell, DT, Stanley, JC. Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1963.Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Kelly supplementary material

Kelly supplementary material 1

Download Kelly supplementary material(File)
File 18.9 KB
Supplementary material: File

Kelly supplementary material

Table S2

Download Kelly supplementary material(File)
File 16.1 KB