Dataset Information

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

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. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology to be addressed by future research.

Study design and setting

A modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership approach was adopted. This approach used two online surveys and a virtual prioritization workshop with patients and the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders to identify and prioritize unanswered questions.

Results

Patients and the public, researchers, reviewers, clinicians, policymakers, and funders identified and prioritized the top 10 unanswered research questions about rapid review methodology. Priorities were identified throughout the entire review process, from stakeholder involvement and formulating the question, to the methods of a systematic review that are appropriate to use, through to the dissemination of results.

Conclusion

The results of the Priority III study will inform the future research agenda on rapid review methodology. We hope this will enhance the quality of evidence produced by rapid reviews, which will ultimately inform decision-making in the context of healthcare.

SUBMITTER: Beecher C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC9487890 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Aug

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Beecher Claire C Toomey Elaine E Maeso Beccy B Whiting Caroline C Stewart Derek C DC Worrall Andrew A Elliott Jim J Smith Maureen M Tierney Theresa T Blackwood Bronagh B Maguire Teresa T Kampman Melissa M Ling Benny B Gill Catherine C Healy Patricia P Houghton Catherine C Booth Andrew A Garritty Chantelle C Thomas James J Tricco Andrea C AC Burke Nikita N NN Keenan Ciara C Devane Declan D

Journal of clinical epidemiology 20220828

<h4>Objectives</h4>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. The Priority III study aimed to identify the top 10 unanswered questions on rapid review methodology ...[more]

PMID: 36038041

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesTo identify research priorities for hypertensive disorders of pregnancy from individuals with lived experience and healthcare professionals.DesignProspective surveys and consensus meetings using principles outlined by the James Lind Alliance.SettingUK.MethodsA steering group was established and 'uncertainties' were gathered using an online survey and literature search. An interim online survey ranked long-listed questions and the top 10 research questions were reached by consensus at a final prioritisation workshop.ParticipantsWomen, partners, relatives and friends of those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension, researchers and healthcare professionals.ResultsThe initial online survey was answered by 278 participants (180 women with lived experience, 9 partners/relatives/friends, 71 healthcare professionals and 18 researchers). Together with a literature search, this identified 764 questions which were refined into 50 summary questions. All summary questions were presented in an interim prioritisation survey that was answered by 155 participants (87 women with lived experience, 4 partners/relatives/friends, 49 healthcare professionals and 15 researchers). The top 25 highest ranked questions were considered by the final prioritisation workshop. The top 10 uncertainties were identified by consensus and ranked as follows in order of priority: long-term consequences of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), short-term complications of pregnancy hypertension (for the woman and baby), screening tests for pre-eclampsia, prevention of long-term problems (for the woman and baby), causes of pregnancy hypertension, prevention of recurrent pregnancy hypertension, educational needs of healthcare professionals, diagnosis of pre-eclampsia, management of pregnancy hypertension, provision of support for women and families.ConclusionsResearch priorities shared by those with lived experience of pregnancy hypertension and healthcare professionals have been identified. Researchers should use these to inform the choice of future studies in this area.

Dataset Information

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Objectives

Study design and setting

Results

Conclusion

Publications

Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets