Table 1 AMSTAR assessment of the three reviews
From: The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies
Question | Review 1 Sexual health | Review 2 Premature ejaculation | Review 3 Cannabis cessation |
|---|---|---|---|
1. Was an 'a priori' design provided? | Yes, published protocol with research questions and inclusion criteria. | Yes, published protocol with research questions and inclusion criteria. | Yes, published protocol with research questions and inclusion criteria. |
2. Was there duplicate study selection and data extraction? | Yes All abstracts and full text articles assessed by two reviewers, data extracted by one reviewer, checked by another. | Yes (partial) Titles and abstracts of citations identified by the searches were screened for potentially relevant studies by one reviewer and a subset checked by a second reviewer (and a check for consistency undertaken). Full texts were screened by two reviewers. One reviewer performed data extraction of each included study. All numerical data were then checked against the original article by a second reviewer. Any disagreements were resolved by a third reviewer. | Yes (partial). Titles and abstracts of citations identified by the searches were screened for potentially relevant studies by one reviewer and a 10Â % sample checked by a second reviewer (and a check for consistency undertaken). Full texts were screened by two reviewers. One reviewer performed data extraction for each included study. All numerical data were checked against the original article by a second reviewer and any disagreements were resolved through discussion. |
3. Was a comprehensive literature search performed? | Yes comprehensive searching reported. | Yes comprehensive searching reported. | Yes comprehensive searching reported. |
4. Was the status of publication (i.e. grey literature) used as an inclusion criterion | Yes, Grey literature was searched, non-English papers excluded | Yes, some Grey literature was searched, non-English papers excluded | Yes, Grey literature was searched, non-English papers excluded |
5. Was a list of studies (included and excluded) provided? | Yes tables of included and excluded studies both included | Yes tables of included and excluded studies both included | Yes tables of included and excluded studies both included |
6. Were the characteristics of the included studies provided? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
7. Was the scientific quality of the included studies assessed and documented? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
8. Was the scientific quality of the included studies used appropriately in formulating conclusions? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
9. Were the methods used to combine the findings of studies appropriate? | Yes | Yes | Yes |
10. Was the likelihood of publication bias assessed? | No | No | No |
11. Was the conflict of interest included? | Yes source of funding for included studies reported. | No sources of funding for included studies not reported | No sources of funding for included studies not reported |
AMSTAR score | 10/11 | 9/11 | 9/11 |