Evaluation of the Interim Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Guidance--A Mixed-Methods Study on the Understanding of and Adherence to the Guidance

Autor/inn/en	Griebler, Ursula; Dobrescu, Andreea; Ledinger, Dominic; Klingenstein, Pauline; Sommer, Isolde; Emprechtinger, Robert; Persad, Emma; Gadinger, Arianna; Trivella, Marialena; Klerings, Irma; Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara
Titel	Evaluation of the Interim Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Guidance--A Mixed-Methods Study on the Understanding of and Adherence to the Guidance
Quelle	In: Research Synthesis Methods, 14 (2023) 6, S.824-846 (23 Seiten)Infoseite zur Zeitschrift PDF als Volltext Verfügbarkeit
Zusatzinformation	ORCID (Griebler, Ursula) ORCID (Emprechtinger, Robert)
Sprache	englisch
Dokumenttyp	gedruckt; online; Zeitschriftenaufsatz
ISSN	1759-2879
DOI	10.1002/jrsm.1656
Schlagwörter	Guidance; Authors; COVID-19; Pandemics; Research Design; Literature Reviews + Suchen Sie Ihr Suchwort? Beratung; Author; Autor; Autorin; Forschungsdesign
Abstract	The Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group (RRMG) first released interim guidance in March 2020 to support authors in conducting rapid reviews (RRs). The objective of this mixed-methods study was to assess the adherence and investigate authors' understanding of the RRMG guidance. We identified all documents citing the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance up to February 17, 2022 and performed an exploratory adherence analysis. We interviewed 20 RR authors to assess the recommendations' comprehensibility and reasons for any deviations. Further, we surveyed nine authors of COVID-19-related Cochrane reviews for their reasons for not conducting a RR. We analyzed 128 RRs (111 non-Cochrane, 17 Cochrane) that cited the RRMG guidance. Several recommendations were not followed by a large proportion of RR authors such as stepwise approach to study design inclusion or peer review of search strategies, whereas others were exceeded, for example, dual independent screening of abstracts/full texts. The most reported reasons for deviating from the guidance were time constraints, unclarities in the recommended approach, or inapplicability to the specific RR. Overall, the guidance was viewed as user-friendly; however, without pre-existing knowledge of systematic review (SR) conduct, the application was perceived as difficult. The main reasons for conducting a full SR over a RR were late availability of the guidance, preset mandate to conduct a SR, uncertainty regarding methodological distinctions between SR and RR, and inapplicability to the evidence base. Clarifications are warranted throughout the Interim Cochrane RRMG guidance to ensure that users with various experience levels can understand and apply its recommendations accordingly. (As Provided).
Anmerkungen	Wiley. Available from: John Wiley & Sons, Inc. 111 River Street, Hoboken, NJ 07030. Tel: 800-835-6770; e-mail: cs-journals@wiley.com; Web site: https://www.wiley.com/en-us
Erfasst von	ERIC (Education Resources Information Center), Washington, DC
Update	2024/1/01