当前位置: X-MOL 学术Syst. Rev. › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
Case report: a rapid review approach used by the UK National Screening Committee to inform recommendations on general population screening for vasa praevia.
Systematic Reviews ( IF 6.3 ) Pub Date : 2019-12-29 , DOI: 10.1186/s13643-019-1244-9
Saoirse Leonard 1 , Amy Buchanan-Hughes 1 , Anna Bobrowska 1 , Cristina Visintin 2 , John Marshall 2
Affiliation  

BACKGROUND The UK National Screening Committee (UK NSC) reviews evidence about existing or potential population screening programmes using rapid review products called evidence summaries. We provide a case report as an example of how rapid reviews are developed within the UK NSC's process, consider how the quality of rapid reviews should be assessed and ask whether the rapid review was an appropriate tool to inform the UK NSC's decision-making process. METHODS We present the rapid review approach taken by the commissioner and the reviewers to develop an evidence summary for vasa praevia (VP), which the UK NSC reappraised as part of its 3-yearly cycle for conditions where screening is currently not recommended. We apply the AMSTAR 2 quality appraisal checklist for systematic reviews, the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklist and a published checklist of items to consider with a rapid review approach. As UK NSC evidence summaries do not include meta-analyses, any related AMSTAR 2 or PRISMA checklist items were considered inapplicable. RESULTS The evidence summary was available within the required timelines and highlighted little change from the previous review in terms of key evidence gaps relating to the epidemiology of VP, the screening test and the management pathway. Therefore, the UK NSC concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support a change in its previous recommendation against screening. The evidence summary scored moderately against the applicable AMSTAR 2 and PRISMA checklist items. Against the published checklist of items to consider with a rapid review approach, the evidence summary performed well. CONCLUSIONS In this case report, the use of a rapid review as part of the UK NSC's process enabled a pragmatic approach to assessing the overall volume, quality and direction of literature on key questions relating to the viability of a population screening programme for VP. Based on our assessments of this single evidence summary, systematic review quality appraisal tools may undervalue rapid reviews. The validity of the methods used in this case report, as well as the wider generalisability of our insights relating to rapid review practice, reporting and quality assessment, requires analysis of a larger sample of rapid reviews.

中文翻译:

病例报告:英国国家筛查委员会使用的快速审查方法,以提供有关鳄梨一般人群筛查的建议。

背景技术英国国家筛查委员会(UK NSC)使用称为证据摘要的快速审查产品审查有关现有或潜在人口普查计划的证据。我们提供了一个案例报告,作为在英国NSC流程中如何进行快速审核的示例,考虑如何评估快速审核的质量,并询问快速审核是否是告知UK NSC决策过程的适当工具。方法我们介绍了专员和审阅者采取的快速审阅方法,以制定有关vasa praevia(VP)的证据摘要,英国NSC将其作为当前不建议进行筛查的条件的3年周期的一部分进行了重新评估。我们将AMSTAR 2质量评估清单用于系统评价,系统评价和元分析的首选报告项目(PRISMA)清单以及要考虑的项目的已发布清单,可采用快速审查方法进行考虑。由于英国NSC证据摘要不包括荟萃分析,因此任何相关的AMSTAR 2或PRISMA检查表项目均不适用。结果证据摘要可在规定的时间范围内获得,并且在与VP流行病学,筛查测试和管理途径有关的关键证据方面,与以前的综述相比,强调的变化很小。因此,英国国家安全委员会得出结论,没有足够的证据支持其先前反对筛查的建议的变更。证据摘要在适用的AMSTAR 2和PRISMA检查表项目中得分中等。与已发布的要使用快速审查方法考虑的项目清单相比,证据摘要的效果很好。结论在本病例报告中,作为英国国家安全委员会流程的一部分,使用了快速审查,从而采取了一种务实的方法来评估有关与VP人群筛查计划的可行性有关的关键问题的文献的总量,质量和方向。根据我们对单证据摘要的评估,系统的评估质量评估工具可能会低估快速评估的价值。此案例报告中使用的方法的有效性以及我们与快速审阅实践,报告和质量评估有关的见解的更广泛的可概括性,要求对较大量的快速审阅样本进行分析。在英国国家安全委员会的流程中,快速审查的使用为评估有关VP人口筛查计划的可行性的关键问题的文献的总量,质量和方向提供了一种务实的方法。根据我们对单证据摘要的评估,系统的评估质量评估工具可能会低估快速评估的价值。此案例报告中使用的方法的有效性以及我们与快速审阅实践,报告和质量评估有关的见解的更广泛的可推广性,需要分析大量的快速审阅样本。在英国国家安全委员会的流程中,快速审查的使用为评估有关VP人口筛查计划的可行性的关键问题的文献的总量,质量和方向提供了一种务实的方法。根据我们对单证据摘要的评估,系统的评估质量评估工具可能会低估快速评估的价值。此案例报告中使用的方法的有效性以及我们与快速审阅实践,报告和质量评估有关的见解的更广泛的可概括性,要求对较大量的快速审阅样本进行分析。根据我们对单证据摘要的评估,系统的评估质量评估工具可能会低估快速评估的价值。此案例报告中使用的方法的有效性以及我们与快速审阅实践,报告和质量评估有关的见解的更广泛的可概括性,要求对较大量的快速审阅样本进行分析。根据我们对单证据摘要的评估,系统的评估质量评估工具可能会低估快速评估的价值。本案例报告中使用的方法的有效性以及我们与快速审阅实践,报告和质量评估有关的见解的更广泛的可概括性,要求对较大数量的快速审阅样本进行分析。
更新日期:2019-12-30
down
wechat
bug