China 
Africa 
Explore chapters and articles related to this topic
Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis
Published in Ching-Yu Cheng, Tien Yin Wong, Ophthalmic Epidemiology, 2022
Gianni Virgili, Jennifer Evans, Tianjing Li
The need for evidence syntheses in response to the COVID-19 pandemic has made researchers more aware that reviews should be conducted in a short time (www.cochrane.org/coronavirus-covid-19-cochrane-resources-and-news; Tricco et al. 2020). More generally, all reviews should be based on questions that are important for users, thus all of them would be developed quickly. Although no established definition of a ‘rapid’ review is widely accepted, Hamel (2020) have revised the underlying key themes and proposed the following definition: ‘A rapid review is a rigorous and transparent form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting a variety of methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner.’
Evidence synthesis
Published in Frances Rapport, Robyn Clay-Williams, Jeffrey Braithwaite, Implementation Science, 2022
“Knowledge objects”, which organize knowledge in coherent and structured ways, can be useful bridges between evidence and action. For example, guideline recommendations have played a long-standing role in implementation practice and science. The speed of evidence production, particularly in areas that are rapidly changing (such as a crisis), is leading to innovations in “rapid review approaches” and “living systematic reviews”, which have the potential to be helpful in narrowing the evidence-to-practice gap. The consequence of living reviews is in the potential for “living guidelines” (Elliott et al. 2017) in which particular guideline recommendations can be rapidly updated with the arrival of new evidence. In that sense, living recommendations can offer timely advice. How much of a role living reviews and their partner “living guidelines” will play in the context of progressing implementation science remains to be seen, particularly given the resources, including infrastructure, needed to support their development, and continued updating. Intuitively, the idea of up-to-date and timely information is appealing particularly if embedded into systems that are close to decision-making and the point of care.
D
Published in Elizabeth Wager, Howard Bauchner, Getting Research Published, 2017
Elizabeth Wager, Howard Bauchner
Aware of the frustration caused by waiting for decisions, and also of the fact that drug companies may be prepared to pay for a more rapid service, some journals offer rapid review for a fee. For example, the International Journal of Clinical Practice offers an expedited review service that ensures peer review within 7 days of online submission and proofs within 7 days of acceptance. However, expedited review is only available for clinical trials (which must conform with the CONSORT or STROBE reporting guidelines). Current Medical Research & Opinion offers RapidTrack peer review within 4 weeks and submission to online publication in 8–10 weeks or FastTrack peer review within 2 weeks with submission to online publication in 4–6 weeks.
A Guide for Schools on Student-Directed Suicide Prevention Programs Eligible for Implementation under the STANDUP Act, a Rapid Review and Evidence Synthesis
Published in Archives of Suicide Research, 2023
Landon B. Krantz, Danette Stanko-Lopp, Matt Kuntz, Holly C. Wilcox
Rapid reviews have potential biases and “may miss relevant information” when compared to a systematic review (Ganann, Ciliska, & Thomas, 2010, p. 7). However, a study by Watt et al. (2008) found that between rapid reviews and full systematic reviews, “the essential conclusions of the rapid and full reviews did not differ extensively” (p. 1037). Similar results were seen by Reynen et al. (2018) who reported that while systematic reviews could provide more detail, conclusions were generally consistent between systematic and rapid reviews. Furthermore, as Khangura, Konnyu, Cushman, Grimshaw, and Moher (2012) noted, rapid review methodology “deliver(s) evidence in both a timely manner and usable format […] to decision makers” (pp. 6-8), which was the most appropriate approach for our study considering the lack of guidance for school districts in school-based program selection. Thus, this rapid review has much to offer in spite of noted limitations.
Developing an Intervention for Suicide Prevention: A Rapid Review of Lived Experience Involvement
Published in Archives of Suicide Research, 2022
David Watling, Megan Preece, Jacinta Hawgood, Sharyn Bloomfield, Kairi Kõlves
A rapid review of existing literature was conducted following PRISMA guidelines (Moher, Liberati, Tetzlaff, Altman, & Group, 2009). A rapid review is a streamlined shortened version of a traditional systematic review which omits sections or reduces comprehensiveness (e.g., no gray literature, fewer databases) to accelerate the process (Khangura, Polisena, Clifford, Farrah, & Kamel, 2014; Tsertsvadze et al., 2015). The rapid review, rather than a systematic review, was used to expedite the dissemination of empirical knowledge applying LE to suicide prevention. A restricted date range (2010–2019) to the review was used given the recency of LE in suicide interventions including LE based on our preliminary searchers and is also justified in the rapid reviews. While further work is needed to explore the reliability of rapid reviews compared to systematic reviews, between the two methods, similar conclusions have been reached (e.g., Cameron, 2007; Ganann, Ciliska, & Thomas, 2010). However, Taylor-Phillips et al. (2017) do recommend enhancing the rapid review by incorporating a second reviewer to screen or check at least 20% of studies found. This is to reduce inaccuracies and omissions and was conducted in the current review.
Communicating about Mental Health with Youth and Their Families: A Scoping Review of Best Practices and Implications for Youth with Disabilities
Published in Developmental Neurorehabilitation, 2022
Revi Bonder, Arbella Yonadam, Andrea Snider, Dilshad Kassam-Lallani, Amy C. McPherson
Scoping review methodology was used given that the extent and nature of existing literature was unclear.13,14 This methodology is particularly valuable when examining novel topics or topics that are broad in scope.13,14 This scoping review utilized the six-stage scoping review framework created by Arksey and O’Malley,12 with updated recommendations from Levac et al.13: 1) identifying the research question; 2) identifying relevant studies; 3) selecting relevant studies; 4) charting the data; 5) collecting, summarizing, and reporting the findings; and 6) consulting with several researchers who have expertise in the field, although this stage is optional. Rapid review principles were also integrated in the review process, further discussed in the search strategy and article screening processes below.15 Rapid reviews source practical and pertinent evidence needed for decision-making in a timely and cost-effective manner.15,16 While rapid reviews are conducted within limited timeframes, the conclusions derived from systematic and rapid reviews are often similar.17