Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez; Paloma Moreno-Nunez; Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit; Karen R. Steingart; Laura del Mar González Peña; Diana Buitrago-Garcia; David Kaunelis; José Ignacio Emparanza; Pablo Alonso-Coello; Andrea C. Tricco; Javier Zamora

doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.004

Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review

Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez^*, Paloma Moreno-Nunez, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Karen R. Steingart, Laura del Mar González Peña, Diana Buitrago-Garcia, David Kaunelis, José Ignacio Emparanza, Pablo Alonso-Coello, Andrea C. Tricco, Javier Zamora

^*Corresponding author for this work

Metabolism and Systems Science

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

5 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background and Objectives: Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Study Design and Setting: We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence. Results: We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses. Conclusion: Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.

Original language	English
Pages (from-to)	98-105
Number of pages	8
Journal	Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume	116
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.004
Publication status	Published - Dec 2019

Bibliographical note

Funding Information:
The authors thank Raquel Sosa-Callejas for her assistance in checking of data extraction. I.A-R. 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”). A.C.T. is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. P.A-C. is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034). Authors' contributions: I.A-R. and J.Z. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing the original draft, and supervision and are responsible for acquisition of funding. P.M-N. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and writing the original draft. B.N-S., K.S., D.K., J.I.E., and P.A-C. contributed to conceptualization and writing, review, and editing of the article. L.M.G.P. and D.B-G. contributed to investigation, formal analysis, and writing, review, and editing of the article. A.C.T. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, and writing, review, and editing of the article. All authors contributed to developing, reading, and approval of the final manuscript.

Funding Information:
Funding: This study was funded by the Fundaci?n para la Investigaci?n Biom?dica (FIBIO)-Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal (Internal grant IMP 18-05/2018). The funder did not have a role in the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, or in writing the final manuscript.The authors thank Raquel Sosa-Callejas for her assistance in checking of data extraction. I.A-R. is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the ?Acci?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?). A.C.T. is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. P.A-C. is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034). Authors' contributions: I.A-R. and J.Z. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing the original draft, and supervision and are responsible for acquisition of funding. P.M-N. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and writing the original draft. B.N-S. K.S. D.K. J.I.E. and P.A-C. contributed to conceptualization and writing, review, and editing of the article. L.M.G.P. and D.B-G. contributed to investigation, formal analysis, and writing, review, and editing of the article. A.C.T. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, and writing, review, and editing of the article. All authors contributed to developing, reading, and approval of the final manuscript.

Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 Elsevier Inc.

Keywords

Health-technology assessment
Knowledge synthesis
Medical tests
Rapid reviews
Review methods
Scoping review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Epidemiology

Access to Document

10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.004

Cite this

Arevalo-Rodriguez, I., Moreno-Nunez, P., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Steingart, K. R., González Peña, L. D. M., Buitrago-Garcia, D., Kaunelis, D., Emparanza, J. I., Alonso-Coello, P., Tricco, A. C., & Zamora, J. (2019). Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 116, 98-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.004

@article{5cc60535dd1e43c9b23a89d11c6be0ce,

title = "Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review",

abstract = "Background and Objectives: Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Study Design and Setting: We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence. Results: We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses. Conclusion: Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.",

keywords = "Health-technology assessment, Knowledge synthesis, Medical tests, Rapid reviews, Review methods, Scoping review",

author = "Ingrid Arevalo-Rodriguez and Paloma Moreno-Nunez and Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit and Steingart, {Karen R.} and {Gonz{\'a}lez Pe{\~n}a}, {Laura del Mar} and Diana Buitrago-Garcia and David Kaunelis and Emparanza, {Jos{\'e} Ignacio} and Pablo Alonso-Coello and Tricco, {Andrea C.} and Javier Zamora",

note = "Funding Information: The authors thank Raquel Sosa-Callejas for her assistance in checking of data extraction. I.A-R. 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”). A.C.T. is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. P.A-C. is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034). Authors' contributions: I.A-R. and J.Z. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing the original draft, and supervision and are responsible for acquisition of funding. P.M-N. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and writing the original draft. B.N-S., K.S., D.K., J.I.E., and P.A-C. contributed to conceptualization and writing, review, and editing of the article. L.M.G.P. and D.B-G. contributed to investigation, formal analysis, and writing, review, and editing of the article. A.C.T. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, and writing, review, and editing of the article. All authors contributed to developing, reading, and approval of the final manuscript. Funding Information: Funding: This study was funded by the Fundaci?n para la Investigaci?n Biom?dica (FIBIO)-Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal (Internal grant IMP 18-05/2018). The funder did not have a role in the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, or in writing the final manuscript.The authors thank Raquel Sosa-Callejas for her assistance in checking of data extraction. I.A-R. is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the ?Acci?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?). A.C.T. is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. P.A-C. is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034). Authors' contributions: I.A-R. and J.Z. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing the original draft, and supervision and are responsible for acquisition of funding. P.M-N. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and writing the original draft. B.N-S. K.S. D.K. J.I.E. and P.A-C. contributed to conceptualization and writing, review, and editing of the article. L.M.G.P. and D.B-G. contributed to investigation, formal analysis, and writing, review, and editing of the article. A.C.T. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, and writing, review, and editing of the article. All authors contributed to developing, reading, and approval of the final manuscript. Publisher Copyright: {\textcopyright} 2019 Elsevier Inc.",

year = "2019",

month = dec,

doi = "10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.004",

language = "English",

volume = "116",

pages = "98--105",

journal = "Journal of Clinical Epidemiology",

issn = "0895-4356",

publisher = "Elsevier",

}

Arevalo-Rodriguez, I, Moreno-Nunez, P, Nussbaumer-Streit, B, Steingart, KR, González Peña, LDM, Buitrago-Garcia, D, Kaunelis, D, Emparanza, JI, Alonso-Coello, P, Tricco, AC & Zamora, J 2019, 'Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review', Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, vol. 116, pp. 98-105. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.004

TY - JOUR

T1 - Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported

T2 - a scoping review

AU - Arevalo-Rodriguez, Ingrid

AU - Moreno-Nunez, Paloma

AU - Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara

AU - Steingart, Karen R.

AU - González Peña, Laura del Mar

AU - Buitrago-Garcia, Diana

AU - Kaunelis, David

AU - Emparanza, José Ignacio

AU - Alonso-Coello, Pablo

AU - Tricco, Andrea C.

AU - Zamora, Javier

N1 - Funding Information: The authors thank Raquel Sosa-Callejas for her assistance in checking of data extraction. I.A-R. 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”). A.C.T. is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. P.A-C. is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034). Authors' contributions: I.A-R. and J.Z. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing the original draft, and supervision and are responsible for acquisition of funding. P.M-N. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and writing the original draft. B.N-S., K.S., D.K., J.I.E., and P.A-C. contributed to conceptualization and writing, review, and editing of the article. L.M.G.P. and D.B-G. contributed to investigation, formal analysis, and writing, review, and editing of the article. A.C.T. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, and writing, review, and editing of the article. All authors contributed to developing, reading, and approval of the final manuscript. Funding Information: Funding: This study was funded by the Fundaci?n para la Investigaci?n Biom?dica (FIBIO)-Hospital Universitario Ramon y Cajal (Internal grant IMP 18-05/2018). The funder did not have a role in the study design, data collection, analysis or interpretation, or in writing the final manuscript.The authors thank Raquel Sosa-Callejas for her assistance in checking of data extraction. I.A-R. is funded by the Instituto de Salud Carlos III through the ?Acci?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?). A.C.T. is funded by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. P.A-C. is supported by a Miguel Servet investigator contract from the Instituto de Salud Carlos III (CPII15/0034). Authors' contributions: I.A-R. and J.Z. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, writing the original draft, and supervision and are responsible for acquisition of funding. P.M-N. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, investigation, formal analysis, and writing the original draft. B.N-S. K.S. D.K. J.I.E. and P.A-C. contributed to conceptualization and writing, review, and editing of the article. L.M.G.P. and D.B-G. contributed to investigation, formal analysis, and writing, review, and editing of the article. A.C.T. contributed to conceptualization, methodology, and writing, review, and editing of the article. All authors contributed to developing, reading, and approval of the final manuscript. Publisher Copyright: © 2019 Elsevier Inc.

PY - 2019/12

Y1 - 2019/12

N2 - Background and Objectives: Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Study Design and Setting: We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence. Results: We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses. Conclusion: Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.

AB - Background and Objectives: Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Study Design and Setting: We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence. Results: We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses. Conclusion: Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed.

KW - Health-technology assessment

KW - Knowledge synthesis

KW - Medical tests

KW - Rapid reviews

KW - Review methods

KW - Scoping review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85072694822&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.004

DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.09.004

M3 - Article

C2 - 31521724

AN - SCOPUS:85072694822

SN - 0895-4356

VL - 116

SP - 98

EP - 105

JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

ER -

Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review

Abstract

Bibliographical note

Keywords

ASJC Scopus subject areas

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Cite this