Search

The COVID-19 pandemic resulted in a rapid adoption of virtual care. Virtual care existed before the pandemic for specific conditions and circumstances. Health Technology Assessment (HTA) of virtual care evaluated clinical and cost-effectiveness to inform decisions about the optimal use prior to the pandemic but the necessary implementation of virtual care during the pandemic meant HTA was not feasible prior to adoption. The questions for HTA no longer focused on clinical or cost-effectiveness and focused on implementation considerations. Health technology assessment post-adoption of virtual care included questions such as the appropriate medical conditions for virtual care, training, billing, patient and clinician perspectives and experiences, and equity of access. Moving forward, it is important for HTA organizations to identify new and emerging virtual care technologies, explore early and other types of evidence, assess the potential impact on the healthcare system, and explore the operational considerations.

Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance ‘rapid’ with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.

Objectives: We aimed to assess whether limiting the inclusion criteria solely to English-language publications affected the overall conclusions of evidence syntheses.Study Design and Setting: Our analyses used a dataset of a previous methods study that included 59 randomly selected Cochrane intervention reviews with no language restrictions. First, we ascertained the publication language of all 2,026 included publications. Next, we excluded studies based on the following criteria: (1) publication solely in non-English language, or (2) main publication (in case of multiple publications of the same study) in non-English language. We then re-calculated meta-analyses for outcomes that were presented in the main summary of findings tables of the Cochrane reports. If the direction of the effect estimate or the statistical significance changed, authors of the respective Cochrane reviews were consulted to assess whether the new evidence base would have changed their conclusions. The primary outcome of our analyses examined the proportion of conclusions that would change with the exclusion of non-English publications. We set the threshold for the approach as noninferior if the upper limit of the 95% confidence interval of the proportion of changed conclusions did not cross a margin of 10%.Results: Across all 59 Cochrane reviews, 29 (49%) included 80 non-English publications. For 16 (27%) of these Cochrane reviews, the exclusion of non-English publications resulted in the exclusion of at least one study. In the remaining 13 Cochrane reviews, the non-English publications were not the only or main publication of the study or they did not contribute to the main summary of the findings table, so their exclusion did not result in an exclusion of the study.Overall, the exclusion of non-English publications led to the exclusion of 31 studies contributing to 40 outcomes. For 38 of the 40 outcomes, the exclusion of non-English studies did not markedly alter the size or direction of effect estimates or statistical significance. In two outcomes, the statistical significance changed, but authors would have still drawn the same conclusion, albeit with less certainty. Thus, the proportion of changed conclusions in our sample was 0.0% (95% CI 0.0-0.6), which indicated the noninferiority of the approach. However, the majority of excluded studies were small.Conclusion: Exclusion of non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and could be a viable methodological shortcut, especially for rapid reviews. (C) 2019 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.

Background Health policy-makers must often make decisions in compressed time frames and with limited resources. Hence, rapid reviews have become a pragmatic alternative to comprehensive systematic reviews. However, it is important that rapid review methods remain rigorous to support good policy development and decisions. There is currently little evidence about which streamlined steps in a rapid review are less likely to introduce unacceptable levels of uncertainty while still producing a product that remains useful to policy-makers. Methods This paper summarizes current research describing commonly used methods and practices that are used to conduct rapid reviews and presents key considerations and options to guide methodological choices for a rapid review. Results The most important step for a rapid review is for an experienced research team to have early and ongoing engagement with the people who have requested the review. A clear research protocol, derived from a needs assessment conducted with the requester, serves to focus the review, defines the scope of the rapid review, and guides all subsequent steps. Common recommendations for rapid review methods include tailoring the literature search in terms of databases, dates, and languages. Researchers can consider using a staged search to locate high-quality systematic reviews and then subsequently published primary studies. The approaches used for study screening and selection, data extraction, and risk-of-bias assessment should be tailored to the topic, researcher experience, and available resources. Many rapid reviews use a single reviewer for study selection, risk-of-bias assessment, or data abstraction, sometimes with partial or full verification by a second reviewer. Rapid reviews usually use a descriptive synthesis method rather than quantitative meta-analysis. Use of brief report templates and standardized production methods helps to speed final report publication. Conclusions Researchers conducting rapid reviews need to make transparent methodological choices, informed by stakeholder input, to ensure that rapid reviews meet their intended purpose. Transparency is critical because it is unclear how or how much streamlined methods can bias the conclusions of reviews. There are not yet internationally accepted standards for conducting or reporting rapid reviews. Thus, this article proposes interim guidance for researchers who are increasingly employing these methods.

Objectives To develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority. Study Design and Setting Interim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided. Results Based on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for systematic reviews is highlighted. Conclusion The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.

Background Policymakers and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly seeking evidence to inform the policymaking process, and often use existing or commissioned systematic reviews to inform decisions. However, the methodologies that make systematic reviews authoritative take time, typically 1 to 2 years to complete. Outside the traditional SR timeline, “rapid reviews” have emerged as an efficient tool to get evidence to decision-makers more quickly. However, the use of rapid reviews does present challenges. To date, there has been limited published empirical information about this approach to compiling evidence. Thus, it remains a poorly understood and ill-defined set of diverse methodologies with various labels. In recent years, the need to further explore rapid review methods, characteristics, and their use has been recognized by a growing network of healthcare researchers, policymakers, and organizations, several with ties to Cochrane, which is recognized as representing an international gold standard for high-quality, systematic reviews. Purpose In this commentary, we introduce the newly established Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group developed to play a leading role in guiding the production of rapid reviews given they are increasingly employed as a research synthesis tool to support timely evidence-informed decision-making. We discuss how the group was formed and outline the group’s structure and remit. We also discuss the need to establish a more robust evidence base for rapid reviews in the published literature, and the importance of promoting registration of rapid review protocols in an effort to promote efficiency and transparency in research. Conclusion As with standard systematic reviews, the core principles of evidence-based synthesis should apply to rapid reviews in order to minimize bias to the extent possible. The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group will serve to establish a network of rapid review stakeholders and provide a forum for discussion and training. By facilitating exchange, the group will strive to conduct research to advance the methods of rapid reviews.

Background: Increasingly, healthcare decision makers demand quality evidence in a short timeframe to support urgent and emergent decisions related to procurement, clinical practice, and policy. Health technology assessment (HTA) producers are responding by developing innovative approaches to evidence synthesis that can be executed more quickly than traditional systematic review. These approaches, and the broader implications they bring to bear on health decision making and policy development, however, are generally neither well-understood nor well-described. This study intends to contribute to an emerging literature around methodological approaches to rapid review in HTA by outlining those developed and implemented by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH).Methods: Since 2005, CADTH has developed and implemented a rapid review approach that synthesizes evidence to support informed healthcare decisions and policy. Rapid Response reports are tailored to the identified needs of Canadian health decision makers, representing a range of options with regard to depth, breadth, and time-to-delivery.Results: Preliminary observations indicate that CADTH's approach to rapid evidence review is generally well-received by Canadian health decision makers; real-world case studies provide pragmatic examples of how health decision makers have used Rapid Response reports to support evidence-informed health decisions across Canada.Conclusions: Rapid review is becoming an increasingly important approach to evidence synthesis, both within and external to the field of HTA. Transparent reporting of the methods used to develop rapid review products will be critical to the assessment of their relevance, utility and effects in a range of contexts.

Objective.To evaluate the clinical effectiveness of preoperative skin antiseptic preparations and application techniques for the prevention of surgical site infections (SSIs).Design.Systematic review of the literature using Medline, EMBASE, and other databases, for the period January 2001 to June 2011.Methods.Comparative studies (including randomized and nonrandomized trials) of preoperative skin antisepsis preparations and application techniques were included. Two researchers reviewed each study and extracted data using standardized tables developed before the study. Studies were reviewed for their methodological quality and clinical findings.Results.Twenty studies (n = 9,520 patients) were included in the review. The results indicated that presurgical antiseptic showering is effective for reducing skin flora and may reduce SSI rates. Given the heterogeneity of the studies and the results, conclusions about which antiseptic is more effective at reducing SSIs cannot be drawn.Conclusions.The evidence suggests that preoperative antiseptic showers reduce bacterial colonization and may be effective at preventing SSIs. The antiseptic application method is inconsequential, and data are lacking to suggest which antiseptic solution is the most effective. Disinfectant products are often mixed with alcohol or water, which makes it difficult to form overall conclusions regarding an active ingredient. Large, well-conducted randomized controlled trials with consistent protocols comparing agents in the same bases are needed to provide unequivocal evidence on the effectiveness of one antiseptic preparation over another for the prevention of SSIs.

The carotenoid composition of tea, mulberry, and cassava leaf has been determined by TLC on silica gel 60 with 75:15:10 ( v/v ) petroleum ether-diethyl ether-acetone as mobile phase. Spectrodensitometric detection was performed at 450 nm. The results showed lutein and β-carotene were the main carotenoids in all the leaves. Tannin was found in tea leaves at a level of 4.60 ± 0.07 g kg −1 . The amount of cyanide in cassava leaf was equivalent to 918.31 ± 11.37 mg hydrocyanic acid kg −1 . A pharmacokinetic study of total carotenoids was designed with three experimental fancy carp diets based on tea, mulberry, and cassava leaves as raw materials. The results showed that the maximum concentrations of serum total carotenoids in fish fed with tea, mulberry, and cassava leaves were 0.0022, 0.0016, and 0.0018 μg mL −1 48, 72, and 48 h after feeding, respectively ( T max ). The volumes of distribution were 23.40, 22.28, and 23.39 mL kg −1 , total body clearance was 0.24, 0.30, and 0.41 mL h −1 kg −1 , and the area ...

The demand for accelerated forms of evidence synthesis is on the rise, largely in response to requests by health care decision makers for expeditious assessment and up-to-date information about health care technologies and health services and programs. As a field, rapid review evidence synthesis is marked by a tension between the strategic priority to inform health care decision-making and the scientific imperative to produce robust, high-quality research that soundly supports health policy and practice. In early 2015, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health convened a forum in partnership with the British Columbia Ministry of Health, the British Columbia Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and the University of Pennsylvania. More than 150 evidence synthesis producers and end users attended the Rapid Review Summit: Then, Now and in the Future. The Summit program focused on the evolving role and practices of rapid reviews to support informed health care policy and clinical decision-making, including the uptake and use of health technology assessment. Our discussion paper highlights the important discussions that occurred during the Rapid Review Summit. It focuses on the initial development of a research agenda that resulted from the Summit presentations and discussions. The research topics centered on three key areas of interest: (1) how to conduct a rapid review; (2) investigating the validity and utility of rapid reviews; and (3) how to improve access to rapid reviews.

Background Health care decision makers often need to make decisions in limited timeframes and cannot await the completion of a full evidence review. Rapid reviews (RRs), utilizing streamlined systematic review methods, are increasingly being used to synthesize the evidence with a shorter turnaround time. Our primary objective was to describe the processes and methods used internationally to produce RRs. In addition, we sought to understand the underlying themes associated with these programs. Methods We contacted representatives of international RR programs from a broad realm in health care to gather information about the methods and processes used to produce RRs. The responses were summarized narratively to understand the characteristics associated with their processes and methods. The summaries were compared and contrasted to highlight potential themes and trends related to the different RR programs. Results Twenty-nine international RR programs were included in our sample with a broad organizational representation from academia, government, research institutions, and non-for-profit organizations. Responses revealed that the main objectives for RRs were to inform decision making with regards to funding health care technologies, services and policy, and program development. Central themes that influenced the methods used by RR programs, and report type and dissemination were the imposed turnaround time to complete a report, resources available, the complexity and sensitivity of the research topics, and permission from the requestor. Conclusions Our study confirmed that there is no standard approach to conduct RRs. Differences in processes and methods across programs may be the result of the novelty of RR methods versus other types of evidence syntheses, customization of RRs for various decision makers, and definition of ‘rapid’ by organizations, since it impacts both the timelines and the evidence synthesis methods. Future research should investigate the impact of current RR methods and reporting to support informed health care decision making, the effects of potential biases that may be introduced with streamlined methods, and the effectiveness of RR reporting guidelines on transparency. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.