TY - JOUR
T1 - What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership
T2 - the Priority III study protocol
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 - Gravel, Christopher
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 - Westmore, Matthew
AU - Devane, Declan
N1 - Publisher Copyright:
Copyright: © 2021 Beecher C et al.
PY - 2021
Y1 - 2021
N2 - 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.
AB - 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.
KW - evidence synthesis
KW - methodology
KW - PPI
KW - Priority setting partnership
KW - Rapid review
KW - systematic review
UR - https://www.scopus.com/pages/publications/85143537778
U2 - 10.12688/hrbopenres.13321.2
DO - 10.12688/hrbopenres.13321.2
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85143537778
SN - 2515-4826
VL - 4
JO - HRB Open Research
JF - HRB Open Research
M1 - 80
ER -