Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews.

Autor:	Stevens A; Centre for Immunization Programs, Infectious Diseases & Vaccination Programs Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada adrienne.stevens@gmail.com., Hersi M; Centre for Immunization Programs, Infectious Diseases & Vaccination Programs Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., Garritty C; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.; Global Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., Hartling L; Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada., Shea BJ; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., Stewart LA; Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK., Welch VA; Bruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.; School of Epidemiology and Public Health, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada., Tricco AC; Epidemiology Division and Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.; Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Jazyk:	angličtina
Zdroj:	BMJ evidence-based medicine [BMJ Evid Based Med] 2024 Jul 22. Date of Electronic Publication: 2024 Jul 22.
DOI:	10.1136/bmjebm-2024-112899
Abstrakt:	Rapid reviews (RRs) are produced using abbreviated methods compared with standard systematic reviews (SR) to expedite the process for decision-making. This paper provides interim guidance to support the complete reporting of RRs. Recommendations emerged from a survey informed by empirical studies of RR reporting, in addition to collective experience. RR producers should use existing, robustly developed reporting guidelines as the foundation for writing RRs: notably Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020; reporting for SRs), but also preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) items (reporting for overviews of SRs) where SRs are included in the RR. In addition, a minimum set of six items were identified for RRs: three items pertaining to methods and three addressing publication ethics. Authors should be reporting what a priori-defined iterative methods were used during conduct, what distinguishes their RR from an SR, and knowledge user (eg, policymaker) involvement in the process. Explicitly reporting deviations from standard SR methods, including omitted steps, is important. The inclusion of publication ethics items reflects the predominance of non-journal published RRs: reporting an authorship byline and corresponding author, acknowledging other contributors, and reporting the use of expert peer review. As various formats may be used when packaging and presenting information to decision-makers, it is practical to think of complete reporting as across a set of explicitly linked documents made available in an open-access journal or repository that is barrier-free. We encourage feedback from the RR community of the use of these items as we look to develop a consolidated list in the development of PRISMA-RR. Competing Interests: Competing interests: BJS led the development of AMSTAR. No other authors had conflicts to declare. (© Author(s) (or their employer(s)) 2024. Re-use permitted under CC BY-NC. No commercial re-use. See rights and permissions. Published by BMJ.)
Databáze:	MEDLINE
Externí odkaz:	Zobrazit plný text záznamu