BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023 · 64 citations · 32 references
Bias AssessmentSystematic Literature StudyStudy SelectionEducationResearch EvaluationResearch EthicsTeam ConsiderationsBiasRapid ReviewsManagementQuality ReviewPublic HealthEvaluation MethodologyAssessmentStatisticsReliabilitySystematic ReviewMeta-analysisHealth PolicyRiskPatient SafetySystematic ReviewsMedicineEvidence-based PracticeMethodological Guidance
This paper is part of a series of methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (RRMG). Rapid reviews (RRs) use modified systematic review (SR) methods to accelerate the review process while maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods to ensure integrity. This paper addresses considerations around the acceleration of study selection, data extraction and risk of bias (RoB) assessment in RRs. If a RR is being undertaken, review teams should consider using one or more of the following methodological shortcuts: screen a proportion (eg, 20%) of records dually at the title/abstract level until sufficient reviewer agreement is achieved, then proceed with single-reviewer screening; use the same approach for full-text screening; conduct single-data extraction only on the most relevant data points and conduct single-RoB assessment on the most important outcomes, with a second person verifying the data extraction and RoB assessment for completeness and correctness. Where available, extract data and RoB assessments from an existing SR that meets the eligibility criteria.
32
Rayyan—a web and mobile app for systematic reviews
Mourad Ouzzani, Hossam M. Hammady, Zbys Fedorowicz et al. · Systematic Reviews · 2016 · 22.2K citations · Full text
Interrater reliability: the kappa statistic
Marry L. McHugh · Biochemia Medica · 2012 · 17.4K citations · Full text
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Jonathan A C Sterne, Miguel A. Hernán, Barnaby C Reeves et al. · BMJ · 2016 · 17.4K citations · Full text