Back to Search Start Over

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol [version 1; peer review: 1 approved, 3 approved with reservations]

Authors :
Claire Beecher
Elaine Toomey
Beccy Maeso
Caroline Whiting
Derek C. Stewart
Andrew Worrall
Jim Elliott
Maureen Smith
Theresa Tierney
Bronagh Blackwood
Teresa Maguire
Melissa Kampman
Benny Ling
Christopher Gravel
Catherine Gill
Patricia Healy
Catherine Houghton
Andrew Booth
Chantelle Garritty
James Thomas
Andrea C. Tricco
Nikita N. Burke
Ciara Keenan
Matthew Westmore
Declan Devane
Source :
HRB Open Research, Vol 4 (2021)
Publication Year :
2021
Publisher :
F1000 Research Ltd, 2021.

Abstract

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Subjects

Subjects :
Medicine

Details

Language :
English
ISSN :
25154826
Volume :
4
Database :
Directory of Open Access Journals
Journal :
HRB Open Research
Publication Type :
Academic Journal
Accession number :
edsdoj.4fe600a7e2094343ab0d2b9b0f1e88c7
Document Type :
article
Full Text :
https://doi.org/10.12688/hrbopenres.13321.1