Cited by 95Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchStatistical Methods in Epidemiology

Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study

Open access
Marshall, Iain J., Marshall, Rachel, Wallace, Byron C., Brassey, Jon, Thomas, James·2019·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Abstract

OBJECTIVE: To simulate possible changes in systematic review results if rapid review methods were used. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: We recalculated meta-analyses for binary primary outcomes in Cochrane systematic reviews, simulating rapid review methods. We simulated searching only PubMed, excluding older articles (5, 7, 10, 15, and 20 years before the search date), excluding smaller trials (<50, <100, and <200 participants), and using the largest trial only. We examined percentage changes in pooled odds ratios (ORs) (classed as no important change [<5%], small [<20%], moderate [<30%], or large [≥30%]), statistical significance, and biases observed using rapid methods. RESULTS: Two thousand five hundred and twelve systematic reviews (16,088 studies) were included. Rapid methods resulted in the loss of all data in 3.7-44.7% of meta-analyses. Searching only PubMed had the smallest risk of changed ORs (19% [477/2,512] were small changes or greater; 10% [260/2,512] were moderate or greater). Changes in ORs varied substantially with each rapid review method; 8.4-21.3% were small, 1.9-8.8% were moderate, and 4.7-34.1% were large. Changes in statistical significance occurred in 6.5-38.6% of meta-analyses. Changes from significant to nonsignificant were most common (2.1-13.7% meta-analyses). We found no evidence of bias with any rapid review method. CONCLUSION: Searching PubMed only might be considered where a ∼10% risk of the primary outcome OR changing by >20% could be tolerated. This could be the case in scoping reviews, resource limitation, or where syntheses are needed urgently. Other situations, such as clinical guidelines and regulatory decisions, favor more comprehensive systematic review methods.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.015

Cites

39 of 39 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 1

  1. [4]Shojania KG Sampson M Ansari MT Ji J Garritty C Rader T Updating systematic reviews. technical review no. 16 Rockville, MD Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (US) 2007 20734512

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Marshall, I. J., Marshall, R., Wallace, B. C., Brassey, J., & Thomas, J.
Affiliations
  • Northeastern University (US)
  • University College London (GB)
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2019-05
Volume
109
Pages
30-41
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2906313111
Cited by
95
References
39
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 23 · 2020: 11 · 2019: 7
FWCI
2.02
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
  • UCL Discovery (University College London) (submittedVersion)
Funders
  • Medical Research Council
  • Agency for Healthcare Research Quality (R03-HS025024)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Physical Sciences › Mathematics › Statistics and Probability › Statistical Methods in Epidemiology
Keywords
rapid review, systematic reviews, meta-epidemiology, PubMed search, scoping review
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Epidemiologic Methods, Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Epidemiologic Studies, PubMed

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review