Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL ©): streamlining the systematic review process and creating utility for evidence-based health care

BMC Research Notes

Wayne Jonas²  Raheleh Khorsan¹  Shamini Jain¹  Courtney Boyd²  Cindy Crawford² 

[1] Samueli Institute, 2101 East Coast Hwy., Suite 300, Corona del Mar 92625, CA, USA;Samueli Institute, 1737 King Street, Suite 600, Alexandria 22314, VA, USA

关键词: Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH);    Evidence-based medicine;    Meta-analysis;    Systematic review process;    Methodology;    Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL);   

Others  :  1232867
DOI  :  10.1186/s13104-015-1604-z

 received in 2015-05-01, accepted in 2015-10-19,  发布年份 2015

【 摘 要 】

Background

Systematic reviews (SRs) are widely recognized as the best means of synthesizing clinical research. However, traditional approaches can be costly and time-consuming and can be subject to selection and judgment bias. It can also be difficult to interpret the results of a SR in a meaningful way in order to make research recommendations, clinical or policy decisions, or practice guidelines. Samueli Institute has developed the Rapid Evidence Assessment of the Literature (REAL) SR process to address these issues. REAL provides up-to-date, rigorous, high quality SR information on health care practices, products, or programs in a streamlined, efficient and reliable manner. This process is a component of the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™) program developed by Samueli Institute, which aims at answering the question of “What works?” in health care.

Methods/design

The REAL process (1) tailors a standardized search strategy to a specific and relevant research question developed with various stakeholders to survey the available literature; (2) evaluates the quantity and quality of the literature using structured tools and rulebooks to ensure objectivity, reliability and reproducibility of reviewer ratings in an independent fashion and; (3) obtains formalized, balanced input from trained subject matter experts on the implications of the evidence for future research and current practice.

Results

Online tools and quality assurance processes are utilized for each step of the review to ensure a rapid, rigorous, reliable, transparent and reproducible SR process.

Conclusions

The REAL is a rapid SR process developed to streamline and aid in the rigorous and reliable evaluation and review of claims in health care in order to make evidence-based, informed decisions, and has been used by a variety of organizations aiming to gain insight into “what works” in health care. Using the REAL system allows for the facilitation of recommendations on appropriate next steps in policy, funding, and research and for making clinical and field decisions in a timely, transparent, and cost-effective manner.

【 授权许可】

   
2015 Crawford et al.

【 图 表 】

Fig.1.

【 参考文献 】

• [1]Mulrow C, Chalmers I, Altman D: Rationale for systematic reviews. BMJ 1994, 309:597-599.
• [2]Higgins J, Green S (eds.). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0 [updated March 2011] The Cochrane Collaboration 2011. West Sussex, England: The Cochrane Collaboration; 2011.
• [3]Graham R, Mancher M, Wolman D, Greenfield S, Steinberg E. Institute of Medicine. Clinical Practice Guidelines We Can Trust. Washington, DC: The National Academies Press; 2011.
• [4]Lee C, Crawford C, Wallerstedt D, York A, Duncan A, Smith J, Sprengel M, Welton R, Jonas W: The effectiveness of acupuncture research across components of the trauma spectrum response (tsr): a systematic review of reviews. Syst Rev. 2012, 1:46. BioMed Central Full Text
• [5]Moyer VA: Menopausal hormone therapy for the primary prevention of chronic conditions: U.S. Preventive Services Task Force recommendation statement. Ann Intern Med 2013, 158:47-54.
• [6]Cobb LA, Thomas GI, Dillard DH, Merendino KA, Bruce RA: An evaluation of internal-mammary-artery ligation by a double-blind technic. N Engl J Med 1959, 260:1115-1118.
• [7]Dimond EG, Kittle CF, Crockett JE: Comparison of internal mammary artery ligation and sham operation for angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 1960, 5:483-486.
• [8]Leon MB, Kornowski R, Downey WE, Weisz G, Baim DS, Bonow RO, Hendel RC, Cohen DJ, Gervino E, Laham R, et al.: A blinded, randomized, placebo-controlled trial of percutaneous laser myocardial revascularization to improve angina symptoms in patients with severe coronary disease. J Am Coll Cardiol 2005, 46:1812-1819.
• [9]Salem M, Rotevatn S, Stavnes S, Brekke M, Pettersen R, Kuiper K, Ulvik R, Nordrehaug JE: Release of cardiac biochemical markers after percutaneous myocardial laser or sham procedures. Int J Cardiol 2005, 104:144-151.
• [10]Salem M, Rotevatn S, Stavnes S, Brekke M, Vollset SE, Nordrehaug JE: Usefulness and safety of percutaneous myocardial laser revascularization for refractory angina pectoris. Am J Cardiol 2004, 93:1086-1091.
• [11]Linde K: Systematic reviews and meta-analyses. In Clinical research in complementary therapies: principles, problems and solutioins. Edited by Lewith G, Jonas W, Walach H. Churchill Livingstone, London; 2002:187-197.
• [12]York A, Crawford C, Walter A, Walter J, Jonas W, Coeytaux R: Acupuncture research in military and veteran populations: a rapid evidence assessment of the Literature. Med Acupunct. 2011, 23:229-236.
• [13]Zeno S, Purvis D, Crawford C, Lee C, Lisman P, Deuster P: Warm-ups for military fitness testing: rapid evidence assessment of the literature. Med Sci Sports Exerc 2013, 45:1369-1376.
• [14]Buckenmaier C, Crawford C, Lee C, Schoomaker E: Special issue: Are active self-care complementary and integrative therapies effective for management of chronic pain? A rapid evidence assessment of the literature and recommendations for the field. Pain Med. 2014, 15(Suppl 1):S1-S113.
• [15]Crawford C, Wallerstedt D, Khorsan R, Clausen S, Jonas W, Walter J: Systematic review of biopsychosocial training programs for the self-management of emotional stress: potential applications for the military. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2013, 2013:747694.
• [16]Khorsan R, Crawford C: External validity and model validity: a conceptual approach for systematic review methodology. Evid Based Complement Altern Med. 2014, 2014:694804.
• [17]Moher D, Pham B, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, Liberati A: What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol 2000, 53:964-972.
• [18]Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J: How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess 2003, 7:1-76.
• [19]Hopewell S, McDonald S, Clarke M, Egger M: Grey literature in meta-analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev. 2007, 2:MR000010.
• [20]Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S. Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice? ANX J Surg. 2008;1037–40.
• [21]Davidson J, Crawford C, Ives J, Jonas W: Homeopathic treatments in psychiatry: a systematic review of randomized placebo-controlled studies. J Clin Psychiatry 2011, 72(6):795-807.
• [22]Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG: PRISMA Group: Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. BMJ 2009, 339:b2535.
• [23]The Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation (GRADE) Working Group. http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.
• [24]Hilton L, Jonas W. Claim Assessment Profile Methodology: a method for capturing health care evidence in the Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health Care (SEaRCH™). To be published in BMC Res Notes. 2015.
• [25]Jonas W, Crawford C, Hilton L, Elfenbaum P. Scientific Evaluation and Review of Claims in Health care (SEaRCH™): a streamlined, systematic, phased approach for determining “what works” in health care. To be published in BMC Res Notes. 2015.
• [26]Coulter I, Elfenbaum P, Jain S, Jonas W. SEaRCH Expert Panel Process: streamlining the link between evidence and practice. To be published in BMC Res Notes. 2015.
• [27]Samueli Institute: Research Services. 2015. https://www.samueliinstitute.org/research-areas/research-services/search-services. Accessed 15 Jan 2015.