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

Claire Beecher, Elaine Toomey, Beccy Maeso, Caroline Whiting, Derek C. Stewart, Andrew Worrall, Jim Elliott, Maureen Smith, Theresa Tierney, Bronagh Blackwood, Teresa Maguire, Melissa Kampman, Benny Ling, Catherine Gill, Patricia Healy, Catherine Houghton, Andrew Booth, Chantelle Garritty, James Thomas, Andrea C. TriccoNikita N. Burke, Ciara Keenan, Declan Devane

Research output: Contribution to a Journal (Peer & Non Peer)Articlepeer-review

10 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish
Pages (from-to)151-160
Number of pages10
JournalJournal of Clinical Epidemiology
Volume151
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - Nov 2022

Keywords

  • Evidence synthesis
  • Methodology
  • PPI
  • Priority Setting Partnership
  • Rapid review
  • Systematic review

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of 'Priority III: top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities identified using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this