Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.Methods
We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.Results
All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively).Conclusion
Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.
SUBMITTER: Arevalo-Rodriguez I
PROVIDER: S-EPMC7220561 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:ObjectivesTo assess the methods and reporting of systematic reviews of diagnostic tests.Data sourcesSystematic searches of Medline, Embase, and five other databases identified reviews of tests used in patients with cancer. Of these, 89 satisfied our inclusion criteria of reporting accuracy of the test compared with a reference test, including an electronic search, and published since 1990.Review methodsAll reviews were assessed for methods and reporting of objectives, search strategy, participants, clinical setting, index and reference tests, study design, study results, graphs, meta-analysis, quality, bias, and procedures in the review. We assessed 25 randomly selected reviews in more detail.Results75% (67) of the reviews stated inclusion criteria, 49% (44) tabulated characteristics of included studies, 40% (36) reported details of study design, 17% (15) reported on the clinical setting, 17% (15) reported on the severity of disease in participants, and 49% (44) reported on whether the tumours were primary, metastatic, or recurrent. Of the 25 reviews assessed in detail, 68% (17) stated the reference standard used in the review, 36% (9) reported the definition of a positive result for the index test, and 56% (14) reported sensitivity, specificity, and sample sizes for individual studies. Of the 89 reviews, 61% (54) attempted to formally synthesise results of the studies and 32% (29) reported formal assessments of study quality.ConclusionsReliability and relevance of current systematic reviews of diagnostic tests is compromised by poor reporting and review methods.
| S-EPMC1553548 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Guidelines in the healthcare field generally should contain evidence-based recommendations to inform healthcare decisions. Guidelines often require 2 years or more to develop, but certain circumstances necessitate the development of rapid guidelines (RGs) in a short period of time. Upholding methodological rigor while meeting the reduced development timeframe presents a challenge for developing RGs. Our objective was to review current practices and standards for the development of RGs. This is the first of a series of three articles addressing methodological issues around RGs. METHODS:We conducted a systematic survey of methods manuals and published RGs to identify reasons for the development of RGs. Data sources included existing guideline manuals, published RGs, Trip Medical Database, MEDLINE, EMBASE and communication with guideline developers until February 2018. RESULTS:We identified 46 guidelines that used a shortened timeframe for their development. Nomenclature describing RGs varied across organisations, wherein the United States Centers for Disease Control and Prevention produced 'Interim Guidelines', the National Institute for Health and Care Excellence in the United Kingdom developed 'Short Clinical Guidelines', and WHO provided 'Rapid Advice'. The rationale for RGs included response to emergencies, rapid increases in cases of a condition or disease severity, or new evidence regarding treatment. In general, the methods to assess the quality of evidence, the consensus process and the management of the conflict of interest were not always clear. While we identified another 11 RGs from other institutions, there was no reference to timeframe and reasons for conducting a RG. The three organisations mentioned above provide guidance for the development of RGs. CONCLUSIONS:There is a lack of standardised nomenclature and definitions regarding RGs and there is inconsistency in the methods described in manuals and in RG. It is therefore important that all RGs provide a detailed and transparent description of their methods in order for readers and end-users to be able to assess their quality and validate their findings.
| S-EPMC6044042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND: Policy makers and others often require synthesis of knowledge in an area within six months or less. Traditional systematic reviews typically take at least 12 months to conduct. Rapid reviews streamline traditional systematic review methods in order to synthesize evidence within a shortened timeframe. There is great variation in the process of conducting rapid reviews. This review sought to examine methods used for rapid reviews, as well as implications of methodological streamlining in terms of rigour, bias, and results. METHODS: A comprehensive search strategy--including five electronic databases, grey literature, hand searching of relevant journals, and contacting key informants--was undertaken. All titles and abstracts (n = 1,989) were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Relevance criteria included articles published between 1995 and 2009 about conducting rapid reviews or addressing comparisons of rapid reviews versus traditional reviews. Full articles were retrieved for any titles deemed relevant by either reviewer (n = 70). Data were extracted from all relevant methodological articles (n = 45) and from exemplars of rapid review methods (n = 25). RESULTS: Rapid reviews varied from three weeks to six months; various methods for speeding up the process were employed. Some limited searching by years, databases, language, and sources beyond electronic searches. Several employed one reviewer for title and abstract reviewing, full text review, methodological quality assessment, and/or data extraction phases. Within rapid review studies, accelerating the data extraction process may lead to missing some relevant information. Biases may be introduced due to shortened timeframes for literature searching, article retrieval, and appraisal. CONCLUSIONS: This review examined the continuum between diverse rapid review methods and traditional systematic reviews. It also examines potential implications of streamlined review methods. More of these rapid reviews need to be published in the peer-reviewed literature with an emphasis on articulating methods employed. While one consistent methodological approach may not be optimal or appropriate, it is important that researchers undertaking reviews within the rapid to systematic continuum provide detailed descriptions of methods used and discuss the implications of their chosen methods in terms of potential bias introduced. Further research comparing full systematic reviews with rapid reviews will enhance understanding of the limitations of these methods.
| S-EPMC2914085 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesTo develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority.Study design and settingInterim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided.ResultsBased on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for systematic reviews is highlighted.ConclusionThe Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.
| S-EPMC7557165 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The Cochrane Collaboration says that the Cochrane handbook for diagnostic test accuracy reviews (DTAR) is currently in development as per the Cochrane Collaboration. This implies that the methodology of systematic reviews (SR) of diagnostic test accuracy is still a matter of debate. At this point, comparison of methodologies for SR in case of interventions as against diagnostics would be helpful to understand DTAR.
| S-EPMC4183058 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Novel rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) offer huge potential to optimise clinical care and improve patient outcomes. In this study, we aim to assess the current patterns of use around the world, identify issues for successful implementation and suggest best practice advice on how to introduce new tests. An electronic survey was devised by the International Society of Antimicrobial Chemotherapy (ISAC) Rapid Diagnostics and Biomarkers working group focussing on the availability, structure and impact of RDTs around the world. It was circulated to ISAC members in December 2019. Results were collated according to the UN human development index (HDI). 81 responses were gathered from 31 different countries. 84% of institutions reported the availability of any test 24/7. In more developed countries, this was more for respiratory viruses, whereas in high and medium/low developed countries, it was for HIV and viral hepatitis. Only 37% of those carrying out rapid tests measured the impact. There is no 'one-size fits all' solution to RDTs: the requirements must be tailored to the healthcare setting in which they are deployed and there are many factors that should be considered prior to this.
| S-EPMC7478941 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRapid sequence induction (RSI) is a standard procedure, which should be implemented in all patients with a risk of aspiration/regurgitation during anaesthesia induction.ObjectiveThe primary aim was to evaluate clinical practice in RSI, both in adult and paediatric populations.DesignOnline survey.SettingsA total of 56 countries.ParticipantsMembers of the European Society of Anaesthesiology.Main outcome measuresThe aim was to identify and describe the actual clinical practice of RSI related to general anaesthesia.ResultsFrom the 1921 respondents, 76.5% (n=1469) were qualified anaesthesiologists. When anaesthetising adults, the majority (61.7%, n=1081) of the respondents preoxygenated patients with 100% O2 for 3 min and 65.9% (n=1155) administered opioids during RSI. The Sellick manoeuvre was used by 38.5% (n=675) and was not used by 37.4% (n=656) of respondents. First-line medications for a haemodynamically stable adult patient were propofol (90.6%, n=1571) and suxamethonium (56.0%, n=932). Manual ventilation (inspiratory pressure <12 cmH2O) was used in 35.5% (n=622) of respondents. In the majority of paediatric patients, 3 min of preoxygenation (56.6%, n=817) and opioids (54.9%, n=797) were administered. The Sellick manoeuvre and manual ventilation (inspiratory pressure <12 cmH2O) in children were used by 23.5% (n=340) and 35.9% (n=517) of respondents, respectively. First-line induction drugs for a haemodynamically stable child were propofol (82.8%, n=1153) and rocuronium (54.7%, n=741).ConclusionWe found significant heterogeneity in the daily clinical practice of RSI. For patient safety, our findings emphasise the need for international RSI guidelines.Trial registrationClinicalTrials.gov identifier: NCT03694860.
| S-EPMC7259384 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Effective infectious disease control requires early diagnosis and treatment initiation. Point-of-care testing offers rapid turn-around-times, facilitating same day clinical management decisions. To maximize the benefits of such POC testing programs, we need to understand how rapid tests are used in everyday clinical practice.In this cross-sectional survey study, 400 primary healthcare providers in two cities in South Africa were interviewed on their use of rapid tests in general, and tuberculosis diagnostic practices, between September 2012 and June 2013. Public healthcare facilities were selected using probability-sampling techniques and private healthcare providers were randomly selected from the Health Professional Council of South Africa list. To ascertain differences between the two healthcare sectors 2-sample z-tests were used to compare sample proportions.The numbers of providers interviewed were equally distributed between the public (n = 200) and private sector (n = 200). The most frequently reported tests in the private sector include blood pressure (99.5%), glucose finger prick (89.5%) and urine dipstick (38.5%); and in the public sector were pregnancy (100%), urine dipstick (100%), blood pressure (100%), glucose finger prick (99%) and HIV rapid test (98%). The majority of TB testing occurs in the public sector, where significantly more providers prefer Xpert MTB/RIF assay, the designated clinical TB diagnostic tool by the national TB program, as compared to the private sector (87% versus 71%, p-value >0.0001). Challenges with regard to TB diagnosis included the long laboratory turn-around-time, difficulty in obtaining sputum samples and lost results. All providers indicated that a new POC test for TB should be rapid and cheap, have good sensitivity and specificity, ease of sample acquisition, detect drug-resistance and work in HIV-infected persons.The existing centralized laboratory services, poor quality assurance, and lack of staff capacity deter the use of more rapid tests at POC. Further research into the practices and choices of these providers is necessary to aid the development of new POC tests.
| S-EPMC4624929 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundRespiratory tract infections (RTIs) are often inappropriately treated with antibiotics. Rapid diagnostic tests (RDTs) have been developed with the aim of improving antibiotic prescribing but uptake remains low. The aim of this study was to examine provider knowledge, attitudes and behaviors regarding RDT use and their relationship to antibiotic prescribing decisions across multiple clinical departments in an urban safety-net hospital.MethodsWe conducted a mixed methods sequential explanatory study. Providers with prescribing authority (attending physicians, nurse practitioners and physician assistants) who had at least 20 RTI encounters from January 1, 2016 to December 31, 2018. Eighty-five providers completed surveys and 16 participated in interviews. We conducted electronic surveys via RedCap from April to July 2019, followed by semi-structured individual interviews from October to December 2019, to ascertain knowledge, attitudes and behaviors related to RDT use and antibiotic prescribing.ResultsSurvey findings indicated that providers felt knowledgeable about antibiotic prescribing guidelines. They reported high familiarity with the rapid streptococcus and rapid influenza tests. Familiarity with comprehensive respiratory panel PCR (RPP-respiratory panel PCR) and procalcitonin differed by clinical department. Qualitative interviews identified four main themes: providers trust their clinical judgment more than rapid test results; patient-provider relationships play an important role in prescribing decisions; there is patient demand for antibiotics and providers employ different strategies to address the demand and providers do not believe RDTs are implemented with sufficient education or evidence for clinical practice.ConclusionPrescribers are knowledgeable about prescribing guidelines but often rely on clinical judgement to make final decisions. The utility of RDTs is specific to the type of RDT and the clinical department. Given the low familiarity and clinical utility of RPP and procalcitonin, providers may require additional education and these tests may need to be implemented differently based on clinical department.
| S-EPMC8629209 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesWe tested the following hypotheses: (1) risk-averse general practitioners (GPs) might use more Rapid Antigen Diagnostic Tests (RADTs) in tonsillitis in children, probably to decrease their diagnostic uncertainty regarding the aetiology of the disease (viral vs due to group A Streptococcus); and (2) GPs not using RADT might prescribe more antibiotics when they are risk averse.Design, setting and participantsWe conducted a cross-sectional survey of a nationwide French representative sample of 1093 GPs in 2012.Outcome measuresMultivariate analyses adjusted on the four stratification variables (age, gender, location and volume of activity, ie, the number of annual consultations) were performed to identify the risk domains associated with indicators of good or poor practice.Results69.4% of GPs were aware of national guidelines regarding tonsillitis and declared that they had taken these guidelines into account for their last paediatric tonsillitis case. 59.1% declared they used RADT in their last patient aged between 3 and 16 years presenting with tonsillitis; 29.7% of these tests were positive. Among the GPs who used RADT, 30.7% prescribed an antibiotic; 98.3% did either prescribe an antibiotic because of a positive RADT result, or did not prescribe an antibiotic in view of a negative result. Among the GPs who did not use RADT, 50.7% prescribed an antibiotic. In multivariate analyses, risk-averse GPs declared being more aware of and compliant with guidelines (OR=1.56, p<0.01), and used RADTs more often for their last patient (OR=1.30, p<0.05). Among GPs not using RADT in their last patient, risk-averse GPs prescribed more antibiotics compared with risk-tolerant doctors (OR=1.18, p<0.05).ConclusionsIndividual risk attitudes influenced GPs' practices in tonsillitis, particularly the use of RADTs and antibiotic prescriptions.
| S-EPMC3808757 | biostudies-literature