The Library
Comparison of a full systematic review versus a rapid review approaches to assess a newborn screening test for tyrosinemia type 1
Tools
Tools
Tools
Taylor-Phillips, Sian, Geppert, Julia, Stinton, Chris, Freeman, Karoline, Johnson, Samantha Ann, Fraser, Hannah, Sutcliffe, P. (Paul) and Clarke, Aileen (2017) Comparison of a full systematic review versus a rapid review approaches to assess a newborn screening test for tyrosinemia type 1. Research Synthesis Methods, 8 (4). pp. 475-484. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1255 ISSN 1759-2879.
|
PDF
WRAP-comparison-systematic-versus-rapid-approaches-newborn-tyrosinemia-Taylor-Phillips-2017.pdf - Accepted Version - Requires a PDF viewer. Download (729Kb) | Preview |
Official URL: http://doi.org/10.1002/jrsm.1255
Abstract
Background
Rapid reviews are increasingly used to replace or complement systematic reviews to support evidence based decision-making. Not enough is known about how this expedited process affects results.
Objectives
To assess the difference between rapid and systematic review approaches for a case study of test accuracy of succinylacetone for detecting tyrosinemia type 1.
Methods
Two reviewers conducted a rapid then a systematic review. The rapid review involved narrower searches, a single reviewer with 20%
checking for screening the titles/abstracts and data extraction, and quality assessment using an unchanged QUADAS-2. Two reviewers
performed the systematic review with a tailored QUADAS-2. Post-hoc analysis examined rapid reviewing with just a single reviewer (basic rapid review).
Results
The rapid and systematic reviews identified the same 10 papers, although one paper was only identified in the rapid review through checking included studies’ references. 2176 fewer title/abstracts and 129 fewer full-texts were screened during the rapid review. The unadjusted QUADAS-2 generated more ‘unclear’ ratings [29/70 (41.4%) compared to 16/70 (22.9%)], and fewer ‘high’ ratings [22/70 (31.4%) compared to 42/70 (60.0%)] than the systematic
review using the adjusted QUADAS-2. A rapid review using a single reviewer would have missed up to four eligible studies during screening of titles/abstracts, and contained important inaccuracies in data extraction detected through use of a second reviewer.
Conclusions
Rapid reviews with 20% checking by a second reviewer appears to be an appropriate tool for policy-makers to expeditiously assess evidence. Single reviewer rapid reviews have higher risks of important inaccuracies and omissions.
| Item Type: | Journal Article | ||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Divisions: | Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School > Health Sciences > Population, Evidence & Technologies (PET) Faculty of Science, Engineering and Medicine > Medicine > Warwick Medical School |
||||||||
| Journal or Publication Title: | Research Synthesis Methods | ||||||||
| Publisher: | Wiley-Blackwell Publishing Ltd. | ||||||||
| ISSN: | 1759-2879 | ||||||||
| Official Date: | December 2017 | ||||||||
| Dates: |
|
||||||||
| Volume: | 8 | ||||||||
| Number: | 4 | ||||||||
| Page Range: | pp. 475-484 | ||||||||
| DOI: | 10.1002/jrsm.1255 | ||||||||
| Status: | Peer Reviewed | ||||||||
| Publication Status: | Published | ||||||||
| Access rights to Published version: | Restricted or Subscription Access | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant deposit: | 11 July 2017 | ||||||||
| Date of first compliant Open Access: | 13 July 2018 |
Request changes or add full text files to a record
Repository staff actions (login required)
 |
View Item |
Downloads
Downloads per month over past year
