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

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

^*Corresponding author for this work

Metabolism and Systems Research

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

4 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

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the “Acción Estrategica en Salud 2013-2016 / Contratos Sara Borrell convocatoria 2017/CD17/00219” (Co-funded by European Social Fund 2014-2020, “Investing in your future”). Andrea C. Tricco is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. Pablo Alonso-Coello is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034).

Funding Information:
This study is funded by the Fundación para la Investigación Biomédica (FIBIO)-Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal (Internal grant IMP 18–05/2018). The funder did not have a role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or in writing the final manuscript.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2020 The Author(s).

Keywords

Decision-making
Diagnosis
Knowledge synthesis
Rapid reviews
Tests

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Epidemiology
Health Informatics

Access to Document

10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z

Cite this

Arevalo-Rodriguez, I., Steingart, K. R., 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{4ee1a641e143400b80678706fe2fff71,

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

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.",

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

author = "Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez and Steingart, {Karen R.} 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",

note = "Funding Information: Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the “Acci{\'o}n Estrategica en Salud 2013-2016 / Contratos Sara Borrell convocatoria 2017/CD17/00219” (Co-funded by European Social Fund 2014-2020, “Investing in your future”). Andrea C. Tricco is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. Pablo Alonso-Coello is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034). Funding Information: This study is funded by the Fundaci{\'o}n para la Investigaci{\'o}n Biom{\'e}dica (FIBIO)-Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal (Internal grant IMP 18–05/2018). The funder did not have a role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or in writing the final manuscript. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2020 The Author(s).",

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 = "Springer",

number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests

T2 - An international survey

AU - Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid

AU - Steingart, Karen R.

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

N1 - Funding Information: Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the “Acción Estrategica en Salud 2013-2016 / Contratos Sara Borrell convocatoria 2017/CD17/00219” (Co-funded by European Social Fund 2014-2020, “Investing in your future”). Andrea C. Tricco is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. Pablo Alonso-Coello is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034). Funding Information: This study is funded by the Fundación para la Investigación Biomédica (FIBIO)-Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal (Internal grant IMP 18–05/2018). The funder did not have a role in the design of the study and collection, analysis, interpretation of data, or in writing the final manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © 2020 The Author(s).

PY - 2020/5/13

Y1 - 2020/5/13

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Decision-making

KW - Diagnosis

KW - Knowledge synthesis

KW - Rapid reviews

KW - Tests

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85084627173&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z

DO - 10.1186/s12874-020-01004-z

M3 - Article

C2 - 32404051

AN - SCOPUS:85084627173

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

Bibliographical note

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this