一项国际调查和改良 Delphi 法揭示了许多快速审查方法。
An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods.
机构信息
Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada; Epidemiology Division, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, 6th Floor, 155 College St., Toronto, Ontario M5T 3M7, Canada.
Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1W8, Canada.
出版信息
J Clin Epidemiol. 2016 Feb;70:61-7. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.012. Epub 2015 Aug 29.
OBJECTIVES
To solicit experiences with and perceptions of rapid reviews from stakeholders, including researchers, policy makers, industry, journal editors, and health care providers.
STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING
An international survey of rapid review producers and modified Delphi.
RESULTS
Forty rapid review producers responded on our survey (63% response rate). Eighty-eight rapid reviews with 31 different names were reported. Rapid review commissioning organizations were predominantly government (78%) and health care (58%) organizations. Several rapid review approaches were identified, including updating the literature search of previous reviews (92%); limiting the search strategy by date of publication (88%); and having only one reviewer screen (85%), abstract data (84%), and assess the quality of studies (86%). The modified Delphi included input from 113 stakeholders on the rapid review approaches from the survey. Approach 1 (search limited by date and language; study selection by one reviewer only, and data abstraction and quality appraisal conducted by one reviewer and one verifier) was ranked the most feasible (72%, 81/113 responses), with the lowest perceived risk of bias (12%, 12/103); it also ranked second in timeliness (37%, 38/102) and fifth in comprehensiveness (5%, 5/100).
CONCLUSION
Rapid reviews have many names and approaches, and some methods might be more desirable than others.
目的
征求利益相关者（包括研究人员、政策制定者、行业、期刊编辑和医疗保健提供者）对快速审查的经验和看法。
研究设计与设置
对快速审查生产者进行的国际调查和修改后的德尔菲法。
结果
40 名快速审查生产者对我们的调查做出了回应（回应率为 63%）。报告了 88 项快速审查，涉及 31 个不同名称。快速审查委托组织主要是政府（78%）和医疗保健（58%）组织。确定了几种快速审查方法，包括更新以前审查的文献搜索（92%）；通过出版物日期限制搜索策略（88%）；只有一名审查员筛选（85%）、摘要数据（84%）和评估研究质量（86%）。修改后的德尔菲法收到了来自调查中 113 名利益相关者对快速审查方法的意见。方法 1（按日期和语言限制搜索；仅由一名审查员进行研究选择，由一名审查员和一名验证员进行数据提取和质量评估）被认为是最可行的（72%，113 名受访者中有 81 名），其偏倚风险最低（12%，103 名中有 12 名）；它在及时性方面排名第二（37%，102 名中有 38 名），在全面性方面排名第五（5%，100 名中有 5 名）。
结论
快速审查有许多名称和方法，其中一些方法可能比其他方法更可取。
Zotero 插件