What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

Claire Beecher; Elaine Toomey; Beccy Maeso; Caroline Whiting; Derek C Stewart; Andrew Worrall; Jim Elliott; Maureen Smith; Theresa Tierney; Bronagh Blackwood; Teresa Maguire; Melissa Kampman; Benny Ling; Christopher Gravel; Catherine Gill; Patricia Healy; Catherine Houghton; Andrew Booth; Chantelle Garritty; James Thomas; Andrea C Tricco; Nikita N Burke; Ciara Keenan; Matthew Westmore; Declan Devane

doi:10.12688/hrbopenres.13321.2

What are the most important unanswered research questions on rapid review methodology? A James Lind Alliance research methodology Priority Setting Partnership: the Priority III study protocol

HRB Open Res. 2021 Nov 18:4:80. doi: 10.12688/hrbopenres.13321.2. eCollection 2021.

Authors

Claire Beecher^{1

2}, Elaine Toomey³, Beccy Maeso⁴, Caroline Whiting⁴, Derek C Stewart⁵, Andrew Worrall^{6

7}, Jim Elliott⁶, Maureen Smith⁸, Theresa Tierney⁹, Bronagh Blackwood¹⁰, Teresa Maguire¹¹, Melissa Kampman¹², Benny Ling¹², Christopher Gravel¹³, Catherine Gill¹¹, Patricia Healy², Catherine Houghton², Andrew Booth¹⁴, Chantelle Garritty¹⁵, James Thomas¹⁶, Andrea C Tricco^{17

18

19}, Nikita N Burke^{1

2}, Ciara Keenan²⁰, Matthew Westmore²¹, Declan Devane^{1

2

22}

Affiliations

¹ Evidence Synthesis Ireland and Cochrane Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
² School of Nursing and Midwifery, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
³ School of Allied Health, University of Limerick, Limerick, Ireland.
⁴ James Lind Alliance, University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
⁵ Honorary Professor, National University of Ireland Galway, Galway, Ireland.
⁶ Public co-author, Evidence Synthesis Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
⁷ Public co-author, Staffordshire, UK.
⁸ Public co-author, Cochrane Consumer Network Executive, Ottawa, Canada.
⁹ Patient Partner, HRB Primary Care Clinical Trials Network Ireland, Galway, Ireland.
¹⁰ Wellcome-Wolfson Institute of Experimental Medicine, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
¹¹ Health Research Board, Dublin, Ireland.
¹² Health Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
¹³ School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada.
¹⁴ School of Health And Related Research (ScHARR), University of Sheffield, Sheffield, UK.
¹⁵ Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Canada.
¹⁶ EPPI-Centre, UCL Social Research Institute, University College London, London, UK.
¹⁷ Knowledge Translation Program, Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael's Hospital, Unity Health Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
¹⁸ Epidemiology Division and Institute for Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
¹⁹ Queen's Collaboration for Health Care Quality JBI Centre of Excellence, School of Nursing, Queen's University, Kingston, Ontario, Canada.
²⁰ Campbell UK & Ireland, Queen's University Belfast, Belfast, UK.
²¹ University of Southampton, Southampton, UK.
²² Health Research Board- Trials Methodology Research Network, Galway, Ireland.

Abstract

Background: The value of rapid reviews in informing health care decisions is more evident since the onset of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. While systematic reviews can be completed rapidly, rapid reviews are usually a type of evidence synthesis in which components of the systematic review process may be simplified or omitted to produce information more efficiently within constraints of time, expertise, funding or any combination thereof. There is an absence of high-quality evidence underpinning some decisions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. We will conduct a modified James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the top 10 unanswered research questions about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews in collaboration with patients, public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders. Methods: An international steering group consisting of key stakeholder perspectives (patients, the public, reviewers, researchers, clinicians, policymakers and funders) will facilitate broad reach, recruitment and participation across stakeholder groups. An initial online survey will identify stakeholders' perceptions of research uncertainties about how we plan, do and share rapid reviews. Responses will be categorised to generate a long list of questions. The list will be checked against systematic reviews published within the past three years to identify if the question is unanswered. A second online stakeholder survey will rank the long list in order of priority. Finally, a virtual consensus workshop of key stakeholders will agree on the top 10 unanswered questions. Discussion: Research prioritisation is an important means for minimising research waste and ensuring that research resources are targeted towards answering the most important questions. Identifying the top 10 rapid review methodology research priorities will help target research to improve how we plan, do and share rapid reviews and ultimately enhance the use of high-quality synthesised evidence to inform health care policy and practice.

Keywords: PPI; Priority setting partnership; Rapid review; evidence synthesis; methodology; systematic review.

Grants and funding

Health Research Board Ireland [CBES-2018-001]. Evidence Synthesis Ireland is conducting the Priority III PSP in collaboration with the JLA. Evidence Synthesis Ireland is an all-Ireland initiative funded by the Health Research Board Ireland and the Health and Social Care, Research and Development Division of the Public Health Agency in Northern Ireland.