Centre for Tropical Medicine and Global Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK.
United Kingdom Public Health Rapid Support Team, London, UK.
BMC Med. 2019 Jun 11;17(1):107. doi: 10.1186/s12916-019-1338-1.
Infectious disease epidemics are a constant threat, and while we can strengthen preparedness in advance, inevitably, we will sometimes be caught unaware by novel outbreaks. To address the challenge of rapidly identifying clinical research priorities in those circumstances, we developed and piloted a protocol for carrying out a systematic, rapid research needs appraisal (RRNA) of existing evidence within 5 days in response to outbreaks globally, with the aim to inform clinical research prioritization.
The protocol was derived from rapid review methodologies and optimized through effective use of pre-defined templates and global time zones. It was piloted using a Lassa fever (LF) outbreak scenario. Databases were searched from 1969 to July 2017. Systematic reviewers based in Canada, the UK, and the Philippines screened and extracted data using a systematic review software. The pilot was evaluated through internal analysis and by comparing the research priorities identified from the data, with those identified by an external LF expert panel.
The RRNA pilot was completed within 5 days. To accommodate the high number of articles identified, data extraction was prioritized by study design and year, and the clinical research prioritization done post-day 5. Of 118 potentially eligible articles, 52 met the data extraction criteria, of which 46 were extracted within the 5-day time frame. The RRNA team identified 19 clinical research priorities; the expert panel independently identified 21, of which 11 priorities overlapped. Each method identified a unique set of priorities, showing that combining both methods for clinical research prioritization is more robust than using either method alone.
This pilot study shows that it is feasible to carry out a systematic RRNA within 5 days in response to a (re-) emerging outbreak to identify gaps in existing evidence, as long as sufficient resources are identified, and reviewers are experienced and trained in advance. Use of an online systematic review software and global time zones effectively optimized resources. Another 3 to 5 days are recommended for review of the extracted data and to formulate clinical research priorities. The RRNA can be used for a "Disease X" scenario and should optimally be combined with an expert panel to ensure breadth and depth of coverage of clinical research priorities.
传染病疫情一直是一个持续存在的威胁,虽然我们可以提前加强准备,但不可避免地,我们有时会对新出现的疫情猝不及防。为了应对这种情况,我们需要迅速确定临床研究重点,因此我们制定并试行一种方案,以便在全球范围内针对疫情,在 5 天内对现有证据进行系统、快速的研究需求评估,为临床研究重点提供信息。
该方案源自快速审查方法,并通过有效使用预定义模板和全球时区进行了优化。我们使用拉沙热(LF)疫情场景进行了试点。从 1969 年到 2017 年 7 月,我们在数据库中进行了搜索。加拿大、英国和菲律宾的系统审查员使用系统审查软件进行了筛选和提取数据。通过内部分析和比较数据确定的研究重点与外部 LF 专家小组确定的研究重点,对试点进行了评估。
RRNA 试点在 5 天内完成。为了适应大量确定的文章,数据提取按照研究设计和年份进行了优先级排序,并在第 5 天之后进行了临床研究重点排序。在 118 篇可能符合条件的文章中,有 52 篇符合数据提取标准,其中 46 篇在 5 天内提取完毕。RRNA 小组确定了 19 项临床研究重点;专家组独立确定了 21 项,其中 11 项重点重叠。每种方法都确定了一组独特的重点,这表明将两种方法结合起来进行临床研究重点确定比单独使用任何一种方法都更具稳健性。
这项试点研究表明,只要确定了足够的资源,并且审查员事先具备经验并接受过培训,就可以在 5 天内针对(重新)出现的疫情开展系统的 RRNA,以确定现有证据中的差距。使用在线系统审查软件和全球时区有效地优化了资源。建议再用 3 到 5 天的时间来审查提取的数据并制定临床研究重点。RRNA 可用于“疾病 X”场景,并且最好与专家组结合使用,以确保临床研究重点的广度和深度。