Skip to main content
×
×
Home

DEFINING RAPID REVIEWS: A MODIFIED DELPHI CONSENSUS APPROACH

  • Shannon E. Kelly (a1) (a2), David Moher (a1) (a3) and Tammy J. Clifford (a1) (a4)
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.

Copyright
References
Hide All
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).
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;8:341351.
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.
4. Schünemann, HJ, Moja, L. Reviews: Rapid! rapid! rapid!. . . and systematic. Syst Rev. 2015;4:4.
5. Bero, L, Busuttil, G, Farquhar, C, et al. Measuring the performance of the Cochrane library. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2012;12:Ed000048.
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;17:8695.
7. Hailey, DM. The influence of technology assessments by advisory bodies on health policy and practice. Health Policy. 1993;25:243254.
8. Ganann, R, Ciliska, D, Thomas, H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.
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;10:397410.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
16. Tricco, AC, Antony, J, Zarin, W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224.
17. Kamel, C, Mann, J. Rapid evidence reviews: The CADTH experience [Poster]. International Cochrane Colloquium, Quebec City, Quebec, Canada. [Internet] 2013.
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;30:2027.
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;24:133139.
20. Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: Validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:10371040.
21. Abrami, PC, Borokhovski, E, Bernard, RM, et al. Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence. Evid Policy. 2010;6:371389.
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.
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).
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;30:430437.
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.
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.
27. Okoli, C, Pawlowski, SD. The Delphi method as a research tool: An example, design considerations and applications. Inf Manage. 2004;42:1529.
28. Heiko, A. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Technol Forecast Soc Change. 2012;8:15251536.
29. Thangaratinam, S, Shakila, Redman CWE. The Delphi technique. Obstet Gynaecol. 2005;7:120125.
30. Hsu, CC, Sandford, BA. The Delphi technique: Making sense of consensus. Pract Assess Res Eval. 2007;12:18.
31. Hasson, F, Keeney, S, McKenna, H. Research guidelines for the Delphi survey technique. J Adv Nurs. 2000;32:10081015.
32. FluidSurveys (web-based survey oftware). 2014. www.FluidSurveys.com (accessed May 23, 2015).
33. SOFTWARE: FluidSurveys. 2015. www.FluidSurveys.com (accessed January 15, 2015).
34. McKenna, HP. The Delphi technique: A worthwhile research approach for nursing? J Adv Nurs. 1994;19:12211225.
35. NVivo. Version 10. Copyright QSR International Pty Ltd; 2014.
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;16:651656.
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.
38. Sandelowski, M. Reading, writing and systematic review. J Adv Nurs. 2008;64:104110.
39. Shamseer, L, Moher, D. Planning a systematic review? Think protocols (Web Blog Commentary). BioMed Central Blog. January 5, 2015.
40. Systematic Reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care. University of York: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination; January 2009.
41. Campbell, DT, Stanley, JC. Experimental and quasiexperimental designs for research. Chicago: Rand McNally; 1963.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *
×

Keywords

Type Description Title
WORD
Supplementary materials

Kelly supplementary material
Kelly supplementary material 1

 Word (19 KB)
19 KB
WORD
Supplementary materials

Kelly supplementary material
Table S2

 Word (16 KB)
16 KB

Metrics

Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 0
Total number of PDF views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 0 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between <date>. This data will be updated every 24 hours.

Usage data cannot currently be displayed