Department of Health, Kinesiology and Applied Physiology, Concordia University, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
Montreal Behavioural Medicine Centre, CIUSSS du Nord-de-l'île-de-Montréal, Montreal, Québec, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2023 Jul 7;13(7):e069856. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069856.
Rapid systematic reviews (RRs) have the potential to provide timely information to decision-makers, thus directly impacting healthcare. However, consensus regarding the most efficient approaches to performing RRs and the presence of several unaddressed methodological issues pose challenges. With such a large potential research agenda for RRs, it is unclear what should be prioritised.
To elicit a consensus from RR experts and interested parties on what are the most important methodological questions (from the generation of the question to the writing of the report) for the field to address in order to guide the effective and efficient development of RRs.
An eDelphi study will be conducted. Researchers with experience in evidence synthesis and other interested parties (eg, knowledge users, patients, community members, policymaker, industry, journal editors and healthcare providers) will be invited to participate. The following steps will be taken: (1) a core group of experts in evidence synthesis will generate the first list of items based on the available literature; (2) using LimeSurvey, participants will be invited to rate and rank the importance of suggested RR methodological questions. Questions with open format responses will allow for modifications to the wording of items or the addition of new items; (3) three survey rounds will be performed asking participants to re-rate items, with items deemed of low importance being removed at each round; (4) a list of items will be generated with items believed to be of high importance by ≥75% of participants being included and (5) this list will be discussed at an online consensus meeting that will generate a summary document containing the final priority list. Data analysis will be performed using raw numbers, means and frequencies.
This study was approved by the Concordia University Human Research Ethics Committee (#30015229). Both traditional, for example, scientific conference presentations and publication in scientific journals, and non-traditional, for example, lay summaries and infographics, knowledge translation products will be created.
快速系统评价（RRs）有可能为决策者提供及时的信息，从而直接影响医疗保健。然而，对于执行 RRs 最有效的方法存在共识，并且存在一些未解决的方法学问题，这带来了挑战。由于 RRs 的研究议程如此庞大，不清楚应该优先考虑哪些问题。
从 RR 专家和有兴趣的各方那里征求意见，确定该领域需要解决的最重要的方法学问题（从问题的产生到报告的撰写），以指导 RRs 的有效和高效发展。
将进行一项电子德尔菲研究。将邀请具有循证综合经验的研究人员和其他有兴趣的方（例如，知识使用者、患者、社区成员、决策者、工业界、期刊编辑和医疗保健提供者）参与。将采取以下步骤：（1）一组循证综合方面的专家将根据现有文献生成第一个项目清单；（2）使用 LimeSurvey，邀请参与者对建议的 RR 方法学问题的重要性进行评分和排名。具有开放式格式回复的问题允许修改项目的措辞或添加新的项目；（3）进行三轮调查，要求参与者重新评估项目，每轮都将删除被认为不重要的项目；（4）生成一个项目清单，包含至少 75%的参与者认为重要的项目；（5）将在网上共识会议上讨论该清单，生成一份包含最终优先清单的总结文件。数据分析将使用原始数字、平均值和频率进行。
这项研究得到了康考迪亚大学人类研究伦理委员会（#30015229）的批准。将创建传统的知识转化产品，例如科学会议演示和科学期刊发表，以及非传统的知识转化产品，例如通俗易懂的摘要和信息图。
