Living, Rapid Reviews in a Rapidly Evolving World

When the COVID-19 pandemic began, clinicians struggled to make decisions in the absence of any direct evidence. Researchers responded rapidly to fill the knowledge void with many studies of varying quality, using different interventions, cointerventions, comparators, and populations. Simultaneously, the systematic review field mobilized to organize and help collate, manage, and translate the rapid proliferation of research for on-the-ground decision makers (1, 2).

In the face of a voracious need for information but an insufficient, although rapidly developing, evidence base, the living, rapid review was born. Rapid reviews, although poorly defined, emerged out of the acknowledgment that traditional systematic reviews ...

1. Boutron I, Chaimani A, Meerpohl JJ, et al; COVID-NMA Consortium. The COVID-NMA Project: building an evidence ecosystem for the COVID-19 pandemic [Editorial]. Ann Intern Med. 2020;173:1015-7. [PMID: 32931326] doi:10.7326/M20-5261 LinkGoogle Scholar2. Rada G, Pérez D, Araya-Quintanilla F, et al. Epistemonikos: a comprehensive database of systematic reviews for health decision-making. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2020;20:286. [PMID: 33256642] doi:10.1186/s12874-020-01157-x CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar3. Hartling L, Guise JM, Kato E, et al. EPC methods: an exploration of methods and context for the production of rapid reviews. (Prepared by the Scientific Resource Center under Contract No. 290-2012-00004-C.) AHRQ Publication No. 15-EHC008-EF. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality; 2015. Accessed at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/rapid-review-production/white-paper on 14 November 2022. Google Scholar4. Garner P, Hopewell S, Chandler J, et al; Panel for Updating Guidance for Systematic Reviews (PUGs). When and how to update systematic reviews: consensus and checklist. BMJ. 2016;354:i3507. [PMID: 27443385] doi:10.1136/bmj.i3507 CrossrefMedlineGoogle Scholar5. Holmer HK, Mackey K, Fiordalisi CV, et al. Major update 2: antibody response and risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2 infection—final update of a living, rapid review. Ann Intern Med. 2022. [Epub ahead of print].  doi:10.7326/M22-1745 LinkGoogle Scholar6. El Mikati IK, Khabsa J, Harb T, et al; Living Guidelines Group. A framework for the development of living practice guidelines in health care. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175:1154-60. [PMID: 35785533] doi:10.7326/M22-0514 LinkGoogle Scholar7. Arkhipova-Jenkins I, Helfand M, Armstrong C, et al. Antibody response after SARS-CoV-2 infection and implications for immunity. A rapid living review. Ann Intern Med. 2021;174:811-21. [PMID: 33721517] doi:10.7326/M20-7547 LinkGoogle Scholar8. Helfand M, Fiordalisi C, Wiedrick J, et al. Risk for reinfection after SARS-CoV-2. A living, rapid review for American College of Physicians practice points on the role of the antibody response in conferring immunity following SARS-CoV-2 infection. Ann Intern Med. 2022;175:547-55. [PMID: 35073157] doi:10.7326/M21-4245 LinkGoogle Scholar9. Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality. Immunity after COVID-19. Accessed at https://effectivehealthcare.ahrq.gov/products/immunity-after-covid/protocol on 14 November 2022. Google Scholar

留言 (0)

沒有登入
gif