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 journalArticlepeer-review

10 Scopus citations

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
StatePublished - Nov 2022
Externally publishedYes

Funding

Funding: Evidence Synthesis Ireland conducted the Priority III PSP in collaboration with the JLA. Evidence Synthesis Ireland is an all-Ireland initiative funded by the Health Research Board Ireland and the Health and Social Care , Research and Development Division of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland . Funding: Evidence Synthesis Ireland conducted the Priority III PSP in collaboration with the JLA. Evidence Synthesis Ireland is an all-Ireland initiative funded by the Health Research Board Ireland and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland. Ethical Approval: Ethical approval was granted by the National University of Ireland Galway Research Ethics Committee (reference: 20-Apr-02). Conflict of interest: Nikita Burke is paid in full from Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which is a capacity-building initiative funded by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC R&D Division of the Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland). Claire Beecher is paid in part from Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which is a capacity-building initiative funded by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC R&D Division of the Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland). Declan Devane is paid in part from Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which is a capacity-building initiative funded by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC R&D Division of the Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland). Andrea C. Tricco is paid in part by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis. Grant information: Health Research Board Ireland CBES-2018-001. Author Contributions: Conceptualization: CB, ET, BM, CW, DCS, AW, JE, MS, TT, BB, TM, MK, BL, CG, PH, CH, AB, CG, JT, ACT, NNB, CK, DD. Ideas; formulation or evolution of overarching research goals and aims. Methodology: CB, ET, BM, CW, DCS, AW, JE, MS, TT, BB, TM, MK, BL, CG, PH, CH, AB, CG, JT, ACT, NNB, CK, DD. Development or design of methodology; creation of models. Software: CB, DD. Programming, software development; designing computer programs; implementation of the computer code and supporting algorithms; testing of existing code components. Validation: CB, ET, DCS, AW, JE, MS, TT, TM, PH, AB, CG, JT, ACT, NNB, CK, DD. Verification, whether as a part of the activity or separate, of the overall replication/reproducibility of results/experiments and other research outputs. Formal analysis: CB, ET, DCS, AW, JE, MS, TT, TM, PH, AB, CG, JT, ACT, NNB, CK, DD. Application of statistical, mathematical, computational, or other formal techniques to analyze or synthesize study data. Investigation: CB, ET, BM, CW, DCS, AW, JE, MS, TT, BB, TM, MK, BL, CG, PH, CH, AB, CG, JT, ACT, NNB, CK, DD. Conducting a research and investigation process, specifically performing the experiments, or data/evidence collection. Resources: CB, DD. Provision of study materials, reagents, materials, patients, laboratory samples, animals, instrumentation, computing resources, or other analysis tools. Data Curation: CB, DD. Management activities to annotate (produce metadata), scrub data and maintain research data (including software code, where it is necessary for interpreting the data itself) for initial use and later reuse. Writing - Original Draft: CB, DD. Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically writing the initial draft (including substantive translation). Writing - Review & Editing: CB, ET, BM, CW, DCS, AW, JE, MS, TT, BB, TM, MK, BL, CG, PH, CH, AB, CG, JT, ACT, NNB, CK, DD. Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work by those from the original research group, specifically critical review, commentary or revision–including pre-or postpublication stages. Visualization: CB, DD. Preparation, creation and/or presentation of the published work, specifically visualization/data presentation. Supervision: DD. Oversight and leadership responsibility for the research activity planning and execution, including mentorship external to the core team. Project administration: CB, DD. Management and coordination responsibility for the research activity planning and execution. Funding acquisition: DD, ET, NNB. Acquisition of the financial support for the project leading to this publication. Conflict of interest: Nikita Burke is paid in full from Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which is a capacity-building initiative funded by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC R&D Division of the Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland). Claire Beecher is paid in part from Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which is a capacity-building initiative funded by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC R&D Division of the Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland). Declan Devane is paid in part from Evidence Synthesis Ireland, which is a capacity-building initiative funded by the Health Research Board (Ireland) and the HSC R&D Division of the Public Health Agency (Northern Ireland). Andrea C. Tricco is paid in part by a Tier 2 Canada Research Chair in Knowledge Synthesis.

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