Research Synthesis Methods

Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri‐food public health

Journal Article

  • Author(s): Mai T. Pham, Lisa Waddell, Andrijana Rajić, Jan M. Sargeant, Andrew Papadopoulos, Scott A. McEwen
  • Article first published online: 10 Jun 2016
  • DOI: 10.1002/jrsm.1215
  • Read on Online Library
  • Subscribe to Journal

Background

The rapid review is an approach to synthesizing research evidence when a shorter timeframe is required. The implications of what is lost in terms of rigour, increased bias and accuracy when conducting a rapid review have not yet been elucidated.

Methods

We assessed the potential implications of methodological shortcuts on the outcomes of three completed systematic reviews addressing agri‐food public health topics. For each review, shortcuts were applied individually to assess the impact on the number of relevant studies included and whether omitted studies affected the direction, magnitude or precision of summary estimates from meta‐analyses.

Results

In most instances, the shortcuts resulted in at least one relevant study being omitted from the review. The omission of studies affected 39 of 143 possible meta‐analyses, of which 14 were no longer possible because of insufficient studies (<2). When meta‐analysis was possible, the omission of studies generally resulted in less precise pooled estimates (i.e. wider confidence intervals) that did not differ in direction from the original estimate.

Conclusions

The three case studies demonstrated the risk of missing relevant literature and its impact on summary estimates when methodological shortcuts are applied in rapid reviews. © 2016 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

Related Topics

Related Publications

Related Content

Site Footer

Address:

This website is provided by John Wiley & Sons Limited, The Atrium, Southern Gate, Chichester, West Sussex PO19 8SQ (Company No: 00641132, VAT No: 376766987)

Published features on StatisticsViews.com are checked for statistical accuracy by a panel from the European Network for Business and Industrial Statistics (ENBIS)   to whom Wiley and StatisticsViews.com express their gratitude. This panel are: Ron Kenett, David Steinberg, Shirley Coleman, Irena Ograjenšek, Fabrizio Ruggeri, Rainer Göb, Philippe Castagliola, Xavier Tort-Martorell, Bart De Ketelaere, Antonio Pievatolo, Martina Vandebroek, Lance Mitchell, Gilbert Saporta, Helmut Waldl and Stelios Psarakis.