Evaluating unified tools for critical appraisal within rapid reviews of interventions

Are unified tools more time efficient than design-specific tools for critical appraisals in rapid reviews of intervention effects?

Background

Assessing the quality of studies is crucial for accurately evaluating the effects of interventions. However, this process can be challenging, due to the need to choose appropriate tools, interpret results consistently, and maintain agreement between reviewers.

In rapid reviews, the approach to quality assessment is often inconsistent. This can introduce bias. Methods vary significantly, ranging from using a single reviewer, to involving multiple independent reviewers, or skipping the appraisal altogether.

The time needed for these assessments typically ranges from 10 to 40 minutes per study, depending on the complexity of the tool, the reviewers’ experience, and the nature of the studies being reviewed.

Rationale

Optimising rapid-review processes involves selecting tools that balance rigorous assessment with time efficiency. Unified tools have been developed to address this challenge by offering a structured approach suitable for multiple study designs. However, while these tools show promise, there is limited research comparing their effectiveness to that of tools tailored for specific study designs.

Objective

This research will explore whether unified tools for critical appraisal can streamline the process, improve efficiency, and reduce the time and resources required for rapid reviews of intervention effects. It will also aim to identify the most effective unified tool for this purpose.