Abstract
Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
INTRODUCTION:Rapid reviews are an attractive tool for Health Technology Assessment (HTA) as they may be a support in decision making when time and resources are limited. Rapid reviews are carried out in few weeks (from 3 weeks to 6 months) and require adjustments from standard systematic review methods. Methodology on how to carry out rapid reviews is still debated and guidance regarding the most suitable method to apply is lacking. Kaltenthaler (1) has recently proposed a checklist of items to be considered when undertaking a rapid review. We appraised our rapid assessment on the use of frequency domain (FD)-optical coherence tomography in percutaneous coronary interventions, based on a rapid review of the literature, using the items proposed (1).
METHODS:The checklist reports four key points to consider when planning a rapid review: (i) scoping search - needed to quantify the available evidence and to inform rapid review protocol, (ii) results reporting – considering heterogeneity of intervention, comparators, and outcomes, (iii) clear communication with policy makers - ensuring that review responds to the policy question and (iv) reporting on methods - methodology used, strengths and limitations.
RESULTS:When we applied the checklist proposed by Kaltenthaler (1) to our rapid review on the use of FD-optical coherences tomography it resulted that: the scoping search revealed no useful systematic reviews to answer policy-makers questions and a high number of relevant studies. For results presentation, we used a narrative synthesis reporting outcome data grouped in domains previously defined by an evidence profile. Domains consisted of technical performance, safety, efficacy, and change in management. No meta-analysis was performed due to paucity of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) for the efficacy domain and high heterogeneity in outcomes measures for technical performance. Analysis of some of the outcomes was extremely time-consuming (technical performance) and did not provide particularly useful information for the commissioning body. A clearer and more intensive dialog with policy makers to adjust extent of research question and/or outcomes to be investigated would have probably improved usability for final users. Description of methods was partial.
CONCLUSIONS:The checklist by Kaltenthaler (1) helped us to reflect on the method we used to carry out rapid reviews and to pinpoint possible solutions to improve it.
