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

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, Christopher Gravel, Catherine Gill, Patricia Healy, Catherine Houghton, Andrew Booth, Chantelle Garritty, James ThomasAndrea C Tricco, Nikita N Burke, Ciara Keenan, Matthew Westmore, Declan Devane

Research output: Contribution to journalArticlepeer-review

6 Citations (Scopus)
97 Downloads (Pure)

Abstract

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. 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. 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 languageEnglish
Article number80
Number of pages25
JournalHealth Research Board Open Research
Volume4
Early online date23 Jul 2021
DOIs
Publication statusPublished - 18 Nov 2021

Keywords

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

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)
  • Health Professions (miscellaneous)

Fingerprint

Dive into the research topics of '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'. Together they form a unique fingerprint.

Cite this