TY - JOUR
T1 - Priority III
T2 - top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership
AU - Beecher, Claire
AU - Toomey, Elaine
AU - Maeso, Beccy
AU - Whiting, Caroline
AU - Stewart, Derek C.
AU - Worrall, Andrew
AU - Elliott, Jim
AU - Smith, Maureen
AU - Tierney, Theresa
AU - Blackwood, Bronagh
AU - Maguire, Teresa
AU - Kampman, Melissa
AU - Ling, Benny
AU - Gill, Catherine
AU - Healy, Patricia
AU - Houghton, Catherine
AU - Booth, Andrew
AU - Garritty, Chantelle
AU - Thomas, James
AU - Tricco, Andrea C.
AU - Burke, Nikita N.
AU - Keenan, Ciara
AU - Devane, Declan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
© 2022 The Author(s)
PY - 2022/11
Y1 - 2022/11
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - Evidence synthesis
KW - Methodology
KW - PPI
KW - Priority Setting Partnership
KW - Rapid review
KW - Systematic review
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85138196462&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.002
DO - 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2022.08.002
M3 - Article
C2 - 36038041
AN - SCOPUS:85138196462
SN - 0895-4356
VL - 151
SP - 151
EP - 160
JO - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
JF - Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
ER -