4.3 Article

Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment

Journal

BMJ EVIDENCE-BASED MEDICINE
Volume -, Issue -, Pages -

Publisher

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112185

Keywords

-

Ask authors/readers for more resources

This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG). It discusses considerations around the acceleration of study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment in rapid reviews (RRs). The paper suggests methodological shortcuts such as dual screening at the title/abstract level, single data extraction on relevant data points, and single risk of bias assessment on important outcomes with verification by a second person.
This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG). Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review (SR) methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods to ensure integrity. This paper addresses considerations around the acceleration of study selection, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment in RRs. If a RR is being undertaken, review teams should consider using one or more of the following methodological shortcuts: screen a proportion (eg, 20%) of records dually at the title/abstract level until sufficient reviewer agreement is achieved, then proceed with single-reviewer screening; use the same approach for full-text screening; conduct single-data extraction only on the most relevant data points and conduct single-RoB assessment on the most important outcomes, with a second person verifying the data extraction and RoB assessment for completeness and correctness. Where available, extract data and RoB assessments from an existing SR that meets the eligibility criteria.

Authors

I am an author on this paper
Click your name to claim this paper and add it to your profile.

Reviews

Primary Rating

4.3
Not enough ratings

Secondary Ratings

Novelty
-
Significance
-
Scientific rigor
-
Rate this paper

Recommended

No Data Available
No Data Available