Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-8bhkd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-10T13:08:42.175Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  09 April 2008

Amber Watt ,
Alun Cameron ,
Lana Sturm ,
Timothy Lathlean ,
Wendy Babidge ,
Stephen Blamey ,
Karen Facey ,
David Hailey ,
Inger Norderhaug  and
Guy Maddern
Amber Watt
Affiliation:
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
Alun Cameron
Affiliation:
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
Lana Sturm
Affiliation:
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
Timothy Lathlean
Affiliation:
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
Wendy Babidge
Affiliation:
Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
Stephen Blamey
Affiliation:
Department of Health & Ageing
Karen Facey
Affiliation:
University of Glasgow
David Hailey
Affiliation:
Institute of Health Economics
Inger Norderhaug
Affiliation:
Norwegian Knowledge Centre for the Health Services
Guy Maddern
Affiliation:
University of Adelaide and Royal Australasian College of Surgeons
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Objectives: This review assessed current practice in the preparation of rapid reviews by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, both internationally and in the Australian context, and evaluated the available peer-reviewed literature pertaining to the methodology used in the preparation of these reviews.

Methods: A survey tool was developed and distributed to a total of fifty International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members and other selected HTA organizations. Data on a broad range of themes related to the conduct of rapid reviews were collated, discussed narratively, and subjected to simple statistical analysis where appropriate. Systematic searches of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Australian Medical Index were undertaken in March 2007 to identify literature pertaining to rapid review methodology. Comparative studies, guidelines, program evaluations, methods studies, commentaries, and surveys were considered for inclusion.

Results: Twenty-three surveys were returned (46 percent), with eighteen agencies reporting on thirty-six rapid review products. Axiomatic trends were identified, but there was little cohesion between organizations regarding the contents, methods, and definition of a rapid review. The twelve studies identified by the systematic literature search did not specifically address the methodology underpinning rapid review; rather, many highlighted the complexity of the area. Authors suggested restricted research questions and truncated search strategies as methods to limit the time taken to complete a review.

Conclusions: Rather than developing a formalized methodology by which to conduct rapid reviews, agencies should work toward increasing the transparency of the methods used for each review. It is perhaps the appropriate use, not the appropriate methodology, of a rapid review that requires future consideration.

Keywords

ReviewHealth technology assessmentMethods
Type
GENERAL ESSAYS
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 24 , Issue 2 , April 2008 , pp. 133 - 139
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2008

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Aidelsburger, P, Felder, S, Wasem, J. Guidelines for rapid health-economic HTAs. Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Meet. 2002;18. Abstract 7.Google Scholar
2. Best, L, Stevens, A, Colin-Jones, D. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: The development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England. J Clinic Effectiv. 1997;2:51–56.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
3. Corabian, P, Harstall, C. Rapid assessments provide acceptable quality advice. Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Meet. 2002;18. Abstract 70.Google Scholar
4. Egger, M, Juni, 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;7:1–76.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Eisenberg, JM, Zarin, D. Health technology assessment in the United States. Past, present, and future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:192–198.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
6. Hailey, D. Health technology assessment. Singapore Med J. 2006;47:187–192.Google ScholarPubMed
7. Hailey, D, Corabian, P, Harstall, C, Schneider, W. The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:651–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
8. Lehoux, P, Tailliez, S, Denis, J-L, Hivon, M. Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325–336.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. 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;21:263–267.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
10. Royle, P, Milne, R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: Rapid versus exhaustive searching. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:591–603.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
11. Scott, A, Harstall, C. Brief reports versus full systematic reviews: When is enough really enough? Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Meet. 2003;19. Abstract 8.Google Scholar
12. Stevens, A, Milne, R, Burls, A. Health technology assessment: History and demand. J Public Health Med. 2003;25:98–101.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed