Limits...
Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.

Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ - Syst Rev (2016)

Bottom Line: There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items.Transparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews.Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, H2267A - 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. skelly@ottawaheart.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: Rapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available instruments. The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search for rapid reviews using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library) through December 31, 2014. Grey literature was searched thoroughly, and health technology assessment agencies were surveyed to identify additional rapid review products. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Detailed data was collected from the included reviews on study and reporting characteristics and variables significant to rapid reviews (e.g. nomenclature, definition). We evaluated the quality of conduct and reporting of included rapid reviews using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists. Compliance with each checklist item was examined, and the sum of adequately reported items was used to describe overall compliance. Rapid reviews were stratified to explore differences in compliance related to publication status. The association between compliance and time to completion or length of publication was explored through univariate regression.

Results: Sixty-six rapid reviews were included. There were heterogeneous nomenclature, research questions and approaches to rapid reviews. Compliance with AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists was poor. Published rapid reviews were compliant with individual PRISMA items more often than unpublished reviews, but no difference was seen in AMSTAR item compliance overall. There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items.

Conclusions: Transparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete. Further research may be warranted to explore reporting and conduct guidelines specific to rapid reviews and how these guidelines may be applied across the spectrum of rapid review approaches.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus

Eligibility criteria for rapid review selection
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4862155&req=5

Fig1: Eligibility criteria for rapid review selection

Mentions: Due to the diversity of methodologies, production timelines and nomenclature used in the previous rapid review research [1–3], we followed inclusive selection criteria to identify candidate studies (Fig. 1).Fig. 1


Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.

Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ - Syst Rev (2016)

Eligibility criteria for rapid review selection
© Copyright Policy - OpenAccess
Related In: Results  -  Collection

License 1 - License 2
Show All Figures
getmorefigures.php?uid=PMC4862155&req=5

Fig1: Eligibility criteria for rapid review selection
Mentions: Due to the diversity of methodologies, production timelines and nomenclature used in the previous rapid review research [1–3], we followed inclusive selection criteria to identify candidate studies (Fig. 1).Fig. 1

Bottom Line: There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items.Transparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews.Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete.

View Article: PubMed Central - PubMed

Affiliation: School of Epidemiology, Public Health and Preventive Medicine, University of Ottawa, H2267A - 40 Ruskin Street, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada. skelly@ottawaheart.ca.

ABSTRACT

Background: Rapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available instruments. The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014.

Methods: We performed a comprehensive literature search for rapid reviews using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library) through December 31, 2014. Grey literature was searched thoroughly, and health technology assessment agencies were surveyed to identify additional rapid review products. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Detailed data was collected from the included reviews on study and reporting characteristics and variables significant to rapid reviews (e.g. nomenclature, definition). We evaluated the quality of conduct and reporting of included rapid reviews using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists. Compliance with each checklist item was examined, and the sum of adequately reported items was used to describe overall compliance. Rapid reviews were stratified to explore differences in compliance related to publication status. The association between compliance and time to completion or length of publication was explored through univariate regression.

Results: Sixty-six rapid reviews were included. There were heterogeneous nomenclature, research questions and approaches to rapid reviews. Compliance with AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists was poor. Published rapid reviews were compliant with individual PRISMA items more often than unpublished reviews, but no difference was seen in AMSTAR item compliance overall. There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items.

Conclusions: Transparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete. Further research may be warranted to explore reporting and conduct guidelines specific to rapid reviews and how these guidelines may be applied across the spectrum of rapid review approaches.

No MeSH data available.


Related in: MedlinePlus