Beecher Claire, Toomey Elaine, Maeso Beccy, Whiting Caroline, Stewart Derek C, Worrall Andrew, Elliott Jim, Smith Maureen, Tierney Theresa, Blackwood Bronagh, Maguire Teresa, Kampman Melissa, Ling Benny, Gravel Christopher, Gill Catherine, Healy Patricia, Houghton Catherine, Booth Andrew, Garritty Chantelle, Thomas James, Tricco Andrea C, Burke Nikita N, Keenan Ciara, Westmore Matthew, Devane Declan
Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
HRB Open Res. 2021 Nov 18;4:80. doi: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13321.2. eCollection 2021.
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. 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. 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.
自2019年冠状病毒病（COVID-19）大流行开始以来，快速综述在为医疗保健决策提供信息方面的价值更加明显。虽然系统综述可以快速完成，但快速综述通常是一种证据综合形式，在时间、专业知识、资金或其任意组合的限制下，可能会简化或省略系统综述过程的某些组成部分，以便更高效地生成信息。在关于我们如何计划、开展和分享快速综述的一些决策方面，缺乏高质量的证据支持。我们将开展一项经过改进的詹姆斯·林德联盟优先事项设定合作项目，与患者、公众、综述作者、研究人员、临床医生、政策制定者和资助者合作，确定关于我们如何计划、开展和分享快速综述的前10个未解决的研究问题。一个由关键利益相关者（患者、公众、综述作者、研究人员、临床医生、政策制定者和资助者）组成的国际指导小组将促进各利益相关者群体的广泛参与、招募和参与。初步的在线调查将确定利益相关者对我们如何计划、开展和分享快速综述的研究不确定性的看法。回答将被分类以生成一长串问题清单。该清单将与过去三年发表的系统综述进行核对，以确定该问题是否未得到解答。第二次在线利益相关者调查将对这一长串问题按优先级进行排序。最后，关键利益相关者的虚拟共识研讨会将就前10个未解决的问题达成一致。研究优先级排序是减少研究浪费并确保研究资源用于回答最重要问题的重要手段。确定快速综述方法学的前10个研究优先级将有助于针对性地开展研究，以改进我们计划、开展和分享快速综述的方式，并最终加强高质量综合证据在医疗保健政策和实践中的应用。
