This paper looks specifically at rapid reviews, and includes two questions on dissemination (#7 and #9 below). The authors note that 'published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking...'. I suspect the same is true for evidence on the optimal methods of sharing the results of *any* research, including primary research. Are you aware of any research on this topic? Please email hifa@hifaforums.org
CITATION: Original article| volume 151, p151-160, november 01, 2022
Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership
Claire Beecher et al. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2022
https://www.jclinepi.com/article/S0895-4356(22)00190-1/fulltext
'A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis considered a resource-efficient alternative to the conventional systematic review. Despite a dramatic rise in the number of rapid reviews commissioned and conducted in response to the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic, published evidence on the optimal methods of planning, doing, and sharing the results of these reviews is lacking...
'Priority III engaged with patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology...
'Top 10 questions prioritized
1 What are the best approaches to identify people or groups who will use the results of a rapid review (e.g. stakeholders such as patients and the public, clinicians, policymakers), and how can they have meaningful (i.e., purposeful, relevant) involvement in planning and doing a rapid review, and in reporting and sharing the findings?
2 Do rapid reviews generate similar findings to full systematic reviews, and should the findings from all rapid reviews be considered at lower certainty compared to full systematic reviews?
3 How best can underserved stakeholder groups (e.g. ethnic minorities, socio-economically disadvantaged) and stakeholders from under represented countries (e.g. countries of different income levels) be identified and have meaningful (i.e., purposeful, relevant) involvement in planning and doing rapid reviews, and in sharing the results?
4 When deciding if a research question would benefit from being the focus of a rapid review, rather than a full systematic review, what criteria are helpful?
5 What simplified or omitted methods of a systematic review (e.g. single versus dual screening of citations for inclusion, restrictions on types of studies included) are appropriate to apply in a rapid review, and what are the effects of these simplifications or omissions (e.g. effect on the methods, conclusions, funding available)?
6 What are the best approaches to assess the quality of studies included in a rapid review, and if a quality assessment is either limited or excluded, how should the findings be interpreted?
#7 How best can information on ongoing and completed rapid reviews be shared in a way that minimises research waste?
8 What are the best approaches for developing a search strategy for use in a rapid review, and what is the impact of applying restrictions (e.g. years of inclusion, language, phase of study)?
#9 What are the best approaches for reporting the findings of a rapid review in a clear, succinct way without limiting information on the complete methods, findings and strength of the evidence?
10 What are the most useful processes to use when developing a rapid review research question?'
--
With thanks, Neil
Joint Coordinator, HIFA Communicating health research https://www.hifa.org/projects/new-effective-communication-health-researc...
Let's build a future where every person has access to reliable healthcare information and is protected from misinformation - Join HIFA: www.hifa.org
HIFA profile: Neil Pakenham-Walsh is coordinator of the HIFA global health movement (Healthcare Information For All - www.hifa.org ), a global community with more than 20,000 members in 180 countries, interacting on six global forums in four languages in collaboration with WHO. HIFA brings stakeholders together to accelerate progress towards universal access to reliable healthcare information. HIFA is administered by Global Healthcare Information Network, a UK based non-profit in official relations with the World Health Organization. Twitter: @hifa_org neil AT hifa.org
