Search

Objectives: As time and cost constraints in the conduct of systematic reviews increase, the need to consider the use of existing systematic reviews also increases. We developed guidance on the integration of systematic reviews into new reviews., Methods: A workgroup of methodologists from Evidence-based Practice Centers developed consensus-based recommendations. Discussions were informed by a literature scan and by interviews with organizations that conduct systematic reviews., Results: Twelve recommendations were developed addressing selecting reviews, assessing risk of bias, qualitative and quantitative synthesis, and summarizing and assessing body of evidence., Conclusions: We provide preliminary guidance for an efficient and unbiased approach to integrating existing systematic reviews with primary studies in a new review., (Copyright © 2016 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objectives: Describe characteristics of rapid reviews and examine the impact of methodological variations on their reliability and validity., Study Design and Setting: We conducted a literature review and interviews with organizations that produce rapid reviews or related products to identify methods, guidance, empiric evidence, and current practices., Results: We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations (production time, 5 minutes to 8 months). Methods differed from systematic reviews at all stages. As time frames increased, methods became more rigorous; however, restrictions on database searching, inclusion criteria, data extracted, and independent dual review remained. We categorized rapid products based on extent of synthesis. "Inventories" list what evidence is available. "Rapid responses" present best available evidence with no formal synthesis. "Rapid reviews" synthesize the quality of and findings from the evidence. "Automated approaches" generate meta-analyses in response to user-defined queries. Rapid products rely on a close relationship with end users and support specific decisions in an identified time frame. Limited empiric evidence exists comparing rapid and systematic reviews., Conclusions: Rapid products have tremendous methodological variation; categorization based on time frame or type of synthesis reveals patterns. The similarity across rapid products lies in the close relationship with the end user to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs., (Copyright © 2015 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Objective: Review the effectiveness of group visits (appointments of multiple patients) on quality of life, function, self-efficacy, utilization, and biophysical outcomes in randomized controlled trials of patients with chronic conditions., Methods: We searched MEDLINE(®), Cochrane, CINAHL, and PsycINFO to January 2013 for English-language trials of educational group visits led by non-prescribing facilitators (e.g., peer educators)., Results: We report on 80 arthritis/falls (n=22), asthma/COPD (n=10), CHF/hypertension (n=12), diabetes (n=29), multiple conditions (n=4), and pain (n=4) studies. We found moderate evidence of improved short-term self-efficacy in patients with arthritis (10 studies) and diabetes (10 studies). We found no consistent evidence of improved quality of life; however a moderately strong body of evidence suggests peer-led community-based programs might improve quality of life and utilization in patients with multiple chronic conditions. Meta-analyses found short- (14 studies; mean change HbA1c=-0.27, CI=-0.44, 0.11) and long-term (10 studies; mean change HbA1c=-0.23, CI=-0.44, -0.02) glycemic improvement., Conclusions: Group visits may improve self-efficacy and glycemic control. There was little consistent evidence of improved quality of life, functional status, or utilization., Practice Implications: Group visits represent a reasonable alternative for educating patients with chronic illness, though varied participation/retention suggests they should not be the sole alternative., (Published by Elsevier Ireland Ltd.)