Hostname: page-component-78c5997874-xbtfd Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-13T21:04:35.416Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

RAPID REVIEW: AN EMERGING APPROACH TO EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT

Part of: Special Collection - Methods

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  22 January 2014

Sara Khangura ,
Julie Polisena ,
Tammy J. Clifford ,
Kelly Farrah  and
Chris Kamel
Sara Khangura
Affiliation:
Department Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa
Julie Polisena
Affiliation:
Department Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Medicine, University of OttawaCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Tammy J. Clifford
Affiliation:
Department Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, Faculty of Medicine, University of OttawaCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Kelly Farrah
Affiliation:
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Chris Kamel
Affiliation:
Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

Background: Increasingly, healthcare decision makers demand quality evidence in a short timeframe to support urgent and emergent decisions related to procurement, clinical practice, and policy. Health technology assessment (HTA) producers are responding by developing innovative approaches to evidence synthesis that can be executed more quickly than traditional systematic review. These approaches, and the broader implications they bring to bear on health decision making and policy development, however, are generally neither well-understood nor well-described. This study intends to contribute to an emerging literature around methodological approaches to rapid review in HTA by outlining those developed and implemented by the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH).

Methods: Since 2005, CADTH has developed and implemented a rapid review approach that synthesizes evidence to support informed healthcare decisions and policy. Rapid Response reports are tailored to the identified needs of Canadian health decision makers, representing a range of options with regard to depth, breadth, and time-to-delivery.

Results: Preliminary observations indicate that CADTH's approach to rapid evidence review is generally well-received by Canadian health decision makers; real-world case studies provide pragmatic examples of how health decision makers have used Rapid Response reports to support evidence-informed health decisions across Canada.

Conclusions: Rapid review is becoming an increasingly important approach to evidence synthesis, both within and external to the field of HTA. Transparent reporting of the methods used to develop rapid review products will be critical to the assessment of their relevance, utility and effects in a range of contexts.

Keywords

ReviewSystematicMethodsHealth policyTechnology assessment
Type
Methods
Information
International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care , Volume 30 , Issue 1 , January 2014 , pp. 20 - 27
Copyright
Copyright © Cambridge University Press 2014 

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

REFERENCES

1. Ganann, R, Ciliska, D, Thomas, H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
2. Gough, D, Thomas, J, Oliver, S. Clarifying differences between review designs and methods. Syst Rev. 2012;1:28.Google Scholar
3. Khangura, S, Konnyu, K, Cushman, R, Grimshaw, J, Moher, D. Evidence summaries: The evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012;1:10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
4. Harker, J, Kleijnen, J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10:397–410.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
5. Thigpen, S, Puddy, RW, Singer, HH, Hall, DM. Moving knowledge into action: Developing the rapid synthesis and translation process within the interactive systems framework. Am J Community Psychol. 2012;50:285–294.Google Scholar
6. Government Social Research Service, Evidence for Policy and Practice Information and Co-ordinating Centre (EPPI-Centre). How to do a REA. London (UK): Civil Service; 2012. http://www.civilservice.gov.uk/networks/gsr/resources-and-guidance/rapid-evidence-assessment/how-to-do-a-rea (accessed March 18, 2012).Google Scholar
7. Perry, AE. To rapid evidence assess or systematic review? An example using persistent and prolific offenders. Slides presented at: 8th International Campbell Colloquium. Vancouver; May 12–14, 2008. http://www.campbellcollaboration.org/artman2/uploads/1/CrimeJustice_Perry.pdf (accessed March 1, 2012).Google Scholar
8. Hailey, D, Corabian, P, Harstall, C, Schneider, W. The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:651–656.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
9. INAHTA (International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment). About INAHTA. Stockholm (Sweden): INAHTA; 2012. http://www.inahta.net/ (accessed June 28, 2012).Google Scholar
10. Drummond, MF, Schwartz, JS, Jonsson, B, et al. Key principles for the improved conduct of health technology assessments for resource allocation decisions. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:244–258.Google Scholar
11. Menon, D, Stafinski, T. Health technology assessment in Canada: 20 years strong? Value Health. 2009;12(Suppl 2):S14–19.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
12. Hailey, D. A preliminary survey on the influence of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2009;25:415–418.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
13. EUnetHTA. JA2 WP5 - Applying the HTA Core Model for Rapid Assessment for national adaptation and reporting. Copenhagen: EUnetHTA Secretariat; 2012. http://www.eunethta.eu/activities/EUnetHTA%20Joint%20Action%202%20%282012-15%29/ja2-wp5-applying-hta-core-model-rapid-assessment-nation (accessed April 18, 2013).Google Scholar
14. Gerhardus, A, Dintsios, CM. The impact of HTA reports on health policy: A systematic review. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2005;1:Doc02.Google ScholarPubMed
15. Abrami, PC, Borokhovski, E, Bernard, RM, et al. Issues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence. Evid Policy. 2010;6:371–389.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
16. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). About rapid response service. Ottawa: CADTH; 2013. http://www.cadth.ca/en/products/rapid-response/rapid-response-service (accessed May 31, 2013).Google Scholar
17. Wright, RW, Brand, RA, Dunn, W, Spindler, KP. How to write a systematic review. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2007;455:23–29.Google Scholar
18. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI). PRISMA-P: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses protocols. Ottawa: OHRI; 2012. http://www.kscanada.ca/docs/PRISMA-P.pdf (accessed October 2, 2012).Google Scholar
19. Centre for Reviews and Dissemination. PROSPERO: International prospective register of systematic reviews. York (UK): University of York. 2012. http://www.crd.york.ac.uk/prospero/ (accessed March 1, 2012).Google Scholar
20. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH). Grey matters: A practical search tool for evidence-based medicine. Updated 2013 Jan. Ottawa: CADTH; 2008. http://www.cadth.ca/en/resources/finding-evidence-is/grey-matters (accessed May 31, 2013).Google Scholar
21. Tricco, AC, Tetzlaff, J, Moher, D. The art and science of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2011;64:11–20.Google Scholar
22. Higgins, JPT, Green, S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed August 1, 2012).Google Scholar
23. Scottish Intercollegiate Guidelines Network. SIGN 50: A guideline developer's handbook. Revised edition. Edinburgh: SIGN; 2011. http://www.sign.ac.uk/pdf/sign50.pdf (accessed June 28, 2012).Google Scholar
24. Downs, SH, Black, N. The feasibility of creating a checklist for the assessment of the methodological quality both of randomised and non-randomised studies of health care interventions. J Epidemiol Community Health. 1998;52:377–384.Google Scholar
25. Whiting, PF, Rutjes, AW, Westwood, ME, et al. QUADAS-2: A revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies. Ann Intern Med. 2011;155:529–536.Google Scholar
26. Shea, BJ, Grimshaw, JM, Wells, GA, et al. Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
27. Brouwers, MC, Kho, ME, Browman, GP, et al. AGREE II: Advancing guideline development, reporting and evaluation in health care. CMAJ. 2010;182:E839–842.Google Scholar
28. Yaffe, J, Montgomery, P, Hopewell, S, Shepard, LD. Empty reviews: A description and consideration of Cochrane systematic reviews with no included studies. PLoS One. 2012;7:e36626.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
29. Cameron, A, Watt, A, Lathlean, T, Sturm, T. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. ASERNIP-S report no. 60. Adelaide (South Australia): Australian Safety & Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures – Surgical (ASERNIP-S); 2007. http://www.surgeons.org/media/297941/rapidvsfull2007_systematicreview.pdf (accessed March 1, 2012).Google Scholar
30. Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: Validity in clinical practice? ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:1037–1040.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
31. Thomas, J, Newman, M, Oliver, S. Rapid evidence assessments of research to inform social policy: Taking stock and moving forward. Evid Policy. 2013;9:5–27.Google Scholar
32. Kamel, C, McGahan, L, Mierzwinski-Urban, M, Embil, J. Preoperative skin antiseptic preparations and application techniques for preventing surgical site infections: A systematic review of the clinical evidence and guidelines. Ottawa: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health; 2011. (Rapid response report: Systematic review). http://www.cadth.ca/media/pdf/htis/june-2011/M0025_Pre-Operative_Skin_Prep_Final.pdf (accessed June 28, 2012).Google ScholarPubMed
33. Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health. Transcutaneous electrical nerve stimulator for diabetic neuropathy: Clinical effectiveness and cost effectiveness. Ottawa: The Agency; 2011. (Rapid response report: Summary of abstracts). http://cadth.ca/media/pdf/htis/july-2011/RB0395_TENS_final.pdf (accessed October 15, 2012).Google Scholar
Supplementary material: File

Khangura Supplementary Material

Table

Download Khangura Supplementary Material(File)
File 28 KB