Skip to main navigation Skip to search Skip to main content

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol: the Priority III study protocol

  • Cochrane Ireland
  • University of Galway
  • University of Limerick
  • University of Southampton
  • Evidence Synthesis Ireland
  • Cochrane Consumer Network Executive
  • HRB Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland
  • Queen's University of Belfast
  • Health Research Board
  • Health Canada
  • University of Ottawa
  • The University of Sheffield
  • Public Health Agency of Canada
  • University College London
  • Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute
  • Queen's University
  • University of Toronto
  • Health Research Board – Trials Methodology Research Network (HRB-TMRN)

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

7 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders’ perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Original languageUndefined/Unknown
Article number80
JournalHRB Open Research
Volume4
Publication statusPublished - 2021

Keywords

  • evidence synthesis
  • methodology
  • PPI
  • Priority setting partnership
  • Rapid review
  • systematic review

Cite this