Marques Vieira, Ariany (2024) Towards rapid reviews improvements: the key methodological challenges. PhD thesis, Concordia University.
Preview |
Text (application/pdf)
3MBMarquesVieira_PhD_S2025.pdf - Accepted Version Available under License Spectrum Terms of Access. |
Abstract
This thesis aims to identify the main methodological questions around Rapid Reviews (RRs) methods and undertake methodological studies to explore the impact of time-saving methods on review results. Study 1: An eDelphi study and consensus meeting were conducted, involving experts and evidence synthesis knowledge users. From an initial list, participants rated (low, medium or high importance) and ranked each item’s importance to improve the time-efficiency of RRs. Items rated as high by ≥75% of participants progressed to the next round, and the final list was concluded during the consensus meeting. Study 2: This methodological study used Cochrane cardiac rehabilitation reviews to assess how database selection impacts study inclusion and outcomes. By examining where each included study was indexed and re-running meta-analyses, we evaluated whether treatment effects varied based on different database combinations. Study 3: This methodological study compared single-review and peer-review (two independent reviewers with a third for discrepancies) approaches for screening titles and abstracts. We assessed the percentage of missed studies, sensitivity, specificity, time, and costs for each method. Results: Study 1 identified seven highly important methodological questions. Three items on search strategy, two on study selection, one on quality/bias assessment, and one on data extraction. Study 2 found that Embase plus CENTRAL was the best database combination. When considering the estimated effects on mortality, when combining the major databases in pairs (MEDLINE, Embase, or CENTRAL), only 38% of results were identical to all databases combined. This percentage increased to 66% when combining three databases. Study 3 found that a single review approach missed 4% of inclusions (sensitivity was 0.84, and specificity was 0.86) and took half the time and costs of peer-review study selections. Conclusion: Search strategy is an important methodological question and based on our results, using at least three databases is recommended for a meta-analysis, but one large database may suffice depending on the review context. Regarding study selection, a single review approach can be useful when time is short. This thesis sets a research agenda to optimise RRs and has the potential to influence global literature, establish best practices, and offer replicable methods for researchers.
| Divisions: | Concordia University > Faculty of Arts and Science > Health, Kinesiology and Applied Physiology |
|---|---|
| Item Type: | Thesis (PhD) |
| Authors: | Marques Vieira, Ariany |
| Institution: | Concordia University |
| Degree Name: | Ph. D. |
| Program: | Health and Exercise Science |
| Date: | 13 August 2024 |
| Thesis Supervisor(s): | Bacon, Simon |
| Keywords: | Rapid review; Systematic review; Methodological Questions; Priority setting; Search Strategy; Studies Selection; Evidence synthesis. |
| ID Code: | 994671 |
| Deposited By: | Ariany Marques Vieira |
| Deposited On: | 17 Jun 2025 14:24 |
| Last Modified: | 17 Jun 2025 14:24 |
References:
1. Langlois EV, Daniels K. Evidence Synthesis for Health Policy and Systems: A Methods Guide. World Health Organization; 2018. Accessed July 19, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK569589/2. Moosapour H, Saeidifard F, Aalaa M, Soltani A, Larijani B. The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine: a conceptual framework. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2021;20(1):919-929. doi:10.1007/s40200-021-00773-8
3. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3. Published online February 2022. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
4. Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ. Defining rapid reviews: a modified delphi consensus approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):265-275. doi:10.1017/S0266462316000489
5. Michelson M, Reuter K. The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications. 2019;16:100443. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100443
6. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Sys. 2016;14(1):83. doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7
7. Griebler U, Dobrescu A, Ledinger D, et al. Evaluation of the interim Cochrane rapid review methods guidance—A mixed‐methods study on the understanding of and adherence to the guidance. Research Synthesis Methods. 2023;14(6):824-846. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1656
8. Molcak HS, Appleby CJ, Brown J, Freeman S, Kandola DK, Banner D. Rapid Knowledge Syntheses: Methodological and Practical Considerations. Canadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2021;31(1):6-12.
9. Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Defining Rapid Reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;129:74-85. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041
10. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016;70:61-67. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.012
11. Aronson JK, Heneghan C, Mahtani KR, Plüddemann A. A word about evidence: ‘rapid reviews’ or ‘restricted reviews’? BMJ EBM. 2018;23(6):204-205. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111025
12. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
1. Langlois EV, Daniels K. Evidence Synthesis for Health Policy and Systems: A Methods Guide. World Health Organization; 2018. Accessed July 19, 2024. https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK569589/
2. Moosapour H, Saeidifard F, Aalaa M, Soltani A, Larijani B. The rationale behind systematic reviews in clinical medicine: a conceptual framework. J Diabetes Metab Disord. 2021;20(1):919-929. doi:10.1007/s40200-021-00773-8
3. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3. Published online February 2022. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
4. Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ. Defining rapid reviews: a modified delphi consensus approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2016;32(4):265-275. doi:10.1017/S0266462316000489
5. Michelson M, Reuter K. The significant cost of systematic reviews and meta-analyses: A call for greater involvement of machine learning to assess the promise of clinical trials. Contemporary Clinical Trials Communications. 2019;16:100443. doi:10.1016/j.conctc.2019.100443
6. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Sys. 2016;14(1):83. doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7
7. Griebler U, Dobrescu A, Ledinger D, et al. Evaluation of the interim Cochrane rapid review methods guidance—A mixed‐methods study on the understanding of and adherence to the guidance. Research Synthesis Methods. 2023;14(6):824-846. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1656
8. Molcak HS, Appleby CJ, Brown J, Freeman S, Kandola DK, Banner D. Rapid Knowledge Syntheses: Methodological and Practical Considerations. Canadian Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2021;31(1):6-12.
9. Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Defining Rapid Reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;129:74-85. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041
10. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2016;70:61-67. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.08.012
11. Aronson JK, Heneghan C, Mahtani KR, Plüddemann A. A word about evidence: ‘rapid reviews’ or ‘restricted reviews’? BMJ EBM. 2018;23(6):204-205. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111025
12. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13(1):224. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
13. Tricco AC, Khalil H, Holly C, et al. Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;20(4):944-949. doi:10.11124/JBIES-21-00371
14. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;130:13-22. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
15. Garritty CM, Norris SL, Moher D. Developing WHO rapid advice guidelines in the setting of a public health emergency. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017;82:47-60. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.010
16. Langlois EV, Straus SE, Antony J, King VJ, Tricco AC. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage. BMJ Glob Health. 2019;4(1):e001178. doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001178
17. Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE. Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide. World Health Organization; 2017. Accessed November 1, 2022. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/327019
18. Munn Z, Pollock D, Barker TH, et al. The Dark Side of Rapid Reviews: A Retreat From Systematic Approaches and the Need for Clear Expectations and Reporting. Ann Intern Med. 2023;176(2):266-267. doi:10.7326/M22-2603
19. Kaltenthaler E, Cooper K, Pandor A, Martyn-St. James M, Chatters R, Wong R. The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):108. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0216-1
20. Featherstone RM, Dryden DM, Foisy M, et al. Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. Syst Rev. 2015;4(1):50. doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4
21. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1(1):10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10
22. Haby MM, Barreto JOM, Kim JYH, et al. What are the best methods for rapid reviews of the research evidence? A systematic review of reviews and primary studies. Research Synthesis Methods. Published online September 11, 2023:jrsm.1664. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1664
23. Wilson MG, Oliver S, Melendez-Torres GJ, Lavis JN, Waddell K, Dickson K. Paper 3: Selecting rapid review methods for complex questions related to health policy and system issues. Syst Rev. 2021;10(1):286. doi:10.1186/s13643-021-01834-y
24. Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ. Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines. Syst Rev. 2016;5(1):79. doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9
25. Waffenschmidt S, Knelangen M, Sieben W, Bühn S, Pieper D. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2019;19(1):132. doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0
26. Gartlehner G, Affengruber L, Titscher V, et al. Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;121:20-28. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.005
27. Beecher C, Toomey E, Maeso B, et al. Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2022;151:151-160. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.002
28. Liberati A, Altman DG, Tetzlaff J, et al. The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate healthcare interventions: explanation and elaboration. BMJ. 2009;339(jul21 1):b2700-b2700. doi:10.1136/bmj.b2700
29. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. Published online March 29, 2021:n71. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
30. Petticrew M, Roberts H. Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences : A Practical Guide. 1st edition. Blackwell Pub; 2006.
31. Khangura S, Polisena J, Clifford TJ, Farrah K, Kamel C. Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2014;30:20-27. doi:10.1017/S0266462313000664
32. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24(02):133-139. doi:10.1017/S0266462308080185
33. Akl EA, Haddaway NR, Rada G, Lotfi T. Future of Evidence Ecosystem Series: Evidence synthesis 2.0: when systematic, scoping, rapid, living, and overviews of reviews come together. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;123:162-165. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.01.025
34. Tricco AC, Garritty CM, Boulos L, et al. Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;126:177-183. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.029
35. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21(2):263-267. doi:10.1017/S026646230505035X
36. Zechmeister I, Schumacher I. The impact of health technology assessment reports on decision making in Austria. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2012;28(1):77-84. doi:10.1017/S0266462311000729
37. Speckemeier C, Niemann A, Wasem J, Buchberger B, Neusser S. Methodological guidance for rapid reviews in healthcare: A scoping review. Research Synthesis Methods. 2022;13(4):394-404. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1555
38. Hsu CC, Sandford BA. The Delphi Technique: Making Sense of Consensus. doi:10.7275/PDZ9-TH90
39. Donohoe H, Stellefson M, Tennant B. Advantages and Limitations of the e-Delphi Technique: Implications for Health Education Researchers. American Journal of Health Education. 2012;43(1):38-46. doi:10.1080/19325037.2012.10599216
40. McMillan SS, King M, Tully MP. How to use the nominal group and Delphi techniques. Int J Clin Pharm. Published online February 5, 2016. doi:10.1007/s11096-016-0257-x
41. Jünger S, Payne SA, Brine J, Radbruch L, Brearley SG. Guidance on Conducting and REporting DElphi Studies (CREDES) in palliative care: Recommendations based on a methodological systematic review. Palliat Med. 2017;31(8):684-706. doi:10.1177/0269216317690685
42. Byrne M, O’Connell A, Egan AM, et al. A core outcomes set for clinical trials of interventions for young adults with type 1 diabetes: an international, multi-perspective Delphi consensus study. Trials. 2017;18(1):602. doi:10.1186/s13063-017-2364-y
43. Fink-Hafner D, Dagen T, Doušak M, Novak M, Hafner-Fink M. Delphi method: Strengths and weaknesses. Adv Meth Stat. 2019;16(2). doi:10.51936/fcfm6982
44. Jones J, Hunter D. Qualitative Research: Consensus methods for medical and health services research. BMJ. 1995;311(7001):376-380. doi:10.1136/bmj.311.7001.376
45. Murphy M, Black N, Lamping D, et al. Consensus development methods, and their use in clinical guideline development. Health Technology Assessment. 1998;2.
46. Sinha IP, Smyth RL, Williamson PR. Using the Delphi technique to determine which outcomes to measure in clinical trials: recommendations for the future based on a systematic review of existing studies. PLoS Medicine. 2011;8:e1000393. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000393
47. Dragomir AI, Boucher VG, Bacon SL, et al. An international Delphi consensus study to define motivational communication in the context of developing a training program for physicians. Translational Behavioral Medicine. 2021;11(2):642-652. doi:10.1093/tbm/ibaa015
48. von der Gracht HA. Consensus measurement in Delphi studies. Technological Forecasting and Social Change. 2012;79(8):1525-1536. doi:10.1016/j.techfore.2012.04.013
49. Moher D, Schulz KF, Simera I, Altman DG. Guidance for Developers of Health Research Reporting Guidelines. PLoS Med. 2010;7(2):e1000217. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000217
50. Cantrill JA, Sibbald B, Buetow S. The Delphi and nominal group techniques in health services research. International Journal of Pharmacy Practice. 2011;4(2):67-74. doi:10.1111/j.2042-7174.1996.tb00844.x
51. O’Cathain A, Murphy E, Nicholl J. Three techniques for integrating data in mixed methods studies. BMJ. 2010;341:c4587. doi:https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.c4587
52. Atkins L, Francis J, Islam R, et al. A guide to using the Theoretical Domains Framework of behaviour change to investigate implementation problems. Implementation Sci. 2017;12(1):77. doi:10.1186/s13012-017-0605-9
53. Boutron I, Moher D, Altman DG, Schulz KF, Ravaud P, for the CONSORT Group. Methods and Processes of the CONSORT Group: Example of an Extension for Trials Assessing Nonpharmacologic Treatments. Ann Intern Med. 2008;148(4):W-60. doi:10.7326/0003-4819-148-4-200802190-00008-w1
54. Smela B, Toumi M, Świerk K, et al. Rapid literature review: definition and methodology. Journal of Market Access & Health Policy. 2023;11(1):2241234. doi:10.1080/20016689.2023.2241234
55. Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E, et al. EPC Methods: An Exploration of Methods and Context for the Production of Rapid Reviews. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2015.
56. King VJ, Stevens A, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Kamel C, Garritty C. Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews. Syst Rev. 2022;11(1):151. doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02011-5
57. Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ. Published online February 6, 2024:e076335. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076335
58. Vieira AM, Szczepanik G, De Waure C, et al. Identifying priority questions regarding rapid systematic reviews’ methods: protocol for an eDelphi study. BMJ Open. 2023;13(7):e069856. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-069856
59. Egger M, Jüni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7(1):1-82. doi:10.3310/hta7010
60. Justesen T, Freyberg J, Schultz ANØ. Database selection and data gathering methods in systematic reviews of qualitative research regarding diabetes mellitus - an explorative study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2021;21(1):94. doi:10.1186/s12874-021-01281-2
61. Ewald H, Klerings I, Wagner G, et al. Abbreviated and comprehensive literature searches led to identical or very similar effect estimates: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;128:1-12. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.08.002
62. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Klerings I, Wagner G, et al. Abbreviated literature searches were viable alternatives to comprehensive searches: a meta-epidemiological study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2018;102:1-11. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.05.022
63. Paez A. Gray literature: An important resource in systematic reviews. J Evidence Based Medicine. 2017;10(3):233-240. doi:10.1111/jebm.12266
64. Saleh AA, Ratajeski MA, Bertolet M. Grey Literature Searching for Health Sciences Systematic Reviews: A Prospective Study of Time Spent and Resources Utilized. EBLIP. 2014;9(3):28-50. doi:10.18438/B8DW3K
65. Pandor A, Kaltenthaler E, Martyn-St James M, et al. Delphi consensus reached to produce a decision tool for SelecTing Approaches for Rapid Reviews (STARR). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019;114:22-29. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.005
66. Tricco AC, Garritty CM, Boulos L, et al. Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2020;126:177-183. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.029
67. Tricco AC, Khalil H, Holly C, et al. Rapid reviews and the methodological rigor of evidence synthesis: a JBI position statement. JBI Evidence Synthesis. 2022;20(4):944-949. doi:10.11124/JBIES-21-00371
68. Frandsen TF, Eriksen MB, Hammer DMG, Christensen JB. PubMed coverage varied across specialties and over time: a large-scale study of included studies in Cochrane reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2019;112:59-66. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.04.015
69. Rice M, Ali MU, Fitzpatrick-Lewis D, Kenny M, Raina P, Sherifali D. Testing the effectiveness of simplified search strategies for updating systematic reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2017;88:148-153. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.06.005
70. Halladay CW, Trikalinos TA, Schmid IT, Schmid CH, Dahabreh IJ. Using data sources beyond PubMed has a modest impact on the results of systematic reviews of therapeutic interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2015;68(9):1076-1084. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.12.017
71. Hartling L, Featherstone R, Nuspl M, Shave K, Dryden DM, Vandermeer B. The contribution of databases to the results of systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2016;16(1):127. doi:10.1186/s12874-016-0232-1
72. Hirt J, Bergmann J, Karrer M. Overlaps of multiple database retrieval and citation tracking in dementia care research: a methodological study. jmla. 2021;109(2). doi:10.5195/jmla.2021.1129
73. Goossen K, Hess S, Lunny C, Pieper D. Database combinations to retrieve systematic reviews in overviews of reviews: a methodological study. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):138. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-00983-3
74. Tricco AC, Langlois EtienneV, Straus SE, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization. Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide. World Health Organization; 2017. Accessed May 29, 2023. https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258698
75. Dobbins M. Rapid Review Guidebook. Vol 1.3. 1.3. (McMaster U, ed.). https://www.nccmt.ca/uploads/media/media/0001/02/800fe34eaedbad09edf80ad5081b9291acf1c0c2.pdf
76. Ng L, Pitt V, Huckvale K, et al. Title and Abstract Screening and Evaluation in Systematic Reviews (TASER): a pilot randomised controlled trial of title and abstract screening by medical students. Syst Rev. 2014;3(1):121. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-3-121
77. Cooper M, Ungar W, Zlotkin S. An assessment of inter-rater agreement of the literature filtering process in the development of evidence-based dietary guidelines. Public Health Nutr. 2006;9(4):494-500. doi:10.1079/PHN2005877
78. Edwards P, Clarke M, DiGuiseppi C, Pratap S, Roberts I, Wentz R. Identification of randomized controlled trials in systematic reviews: accuracy and reliability of screening records. Statistics in Medicine. 2002;21(11):1635-1640. doi:10.1002/sim.1190
79. Doust JA, Pietrzak E, Sanders S, Glasziou PP. Identifying studies for systematic reviews of diagnostic tests was difficult due to the poor sensitivity and precision of methodologic filters and the lack of information in the abstract. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2005;58(5):444-449. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2004.09.011
80. Pham MT, Waddell L, Rajić A, Sargeant JM, Papadopoulos A, McEwen SA. Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri‐food public health. Research Synthesis Methods. 2016;7(4):433-446. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1215
81. Bacon SL, Wu N, Joyal-Desmarais K, et al. COVID-19 Living Evidence Synthesis 13.2a: Effectiveness of Isolation on the Reduction of the Transmission of Respiratory Infectious Diseases (RIDs: I.e., COVID-19, H1N1, SARS, MERS). Montreal Behavioural Medicine Centre, CIUSSS-NIM; 2024.
82. Bacon SL, Wu N, Joyal-Desmarais K, et al. COVID-19 Living Evidence Synthesis 13.2b: Unintended Health and Social Consequences of Isolation and Quarantine for Respiratory Infectious Diseases (RIDs: I.e., COVID-19, H1N1, SARS, and MERS). Montreal Behavioural Medicine Centre, CIUSSS-NIM; 2024.
83. Bacon SL, Wu N, Joyal-Desmarais K, et al. COVID-19 Living Evidence Synthesis 13.2c: Effectiveness of Quarantine on the Reduction of the Transmission of Respiratory Infectious Diseases (RIDs: I.e., COVID-19, H1N1, SARS, and MERS). Montreal Behavioural Medicine Centre, CIUSSS-NIM; 2024.
84. Sim J, Wright CC. The Kappa Statistic in Reliability Studies: Use, Interpretation, and Sample Size Requirements. Physical Therapy. 2005;85(3):257-268. doi:10.1093/ptj/85.3.257
85. Viera AJ, Garrett JM. Understanding Interobserver Agreement: The Kappa Statistic. Family Medicine.
86. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science. 2010;5:56.
87. Abrami PC, Borokhovski E, Bernard RM, et al. Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence. Evidence & Policy. 2010;6(3):371-389. doi:10.1332/174426410X524866
88. Moons P, Goossens E, Thompson DR. Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process. European Journal of Cardiovascular Nursing. 2021;20(5):515-519. doi:10.1093/eurjcn/zvab041
89. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANZ Journal of Surgery. 2008;78(11):1037-1040. doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04730.x
90. Mbuagbaw L, Lawson DO, Puljak L, Allison DB, Thabane L. A tutorial on methodological studies: the what, when, how and why. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20(1):226. doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01107-7
91. Domecq JP, Prutsky G, Elraiyah T, et al. Patient engagement in research: a systematic review. BMC Health Serv Res. 2014;14(1):89. doi:10.1186/1472-6963-14-89
92. Wiles LK, Kay D, Luker JA, et al. Consumer engagement in health care policy, research and services: A systematic review and meta-analysis of methods and effects. Gholipour K, ed. PLoS ONE. 2022;17(1):e0261808. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0261808
93. Fabiano N, Gupta A, Bhambra N, et al. How to optimize the systematic review process using AI tools. JCPP Advances. 2024;4(2):e12234. doi:10.1002/jcv2.12234
94. Malik VS, Singh M. Machine Learning and Artificial Intelligence in Evidence Generation and Evidence Synthesis. Journal of Medical Evidence. Published online April 24, 2024. doi:10.4103/JME.JME_95_23
All items in Spectrum are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved. The use of items is governed by Spectrum's terms of access.
Repository Staff Only: item control page
Download Statistics
Download Statistics