[논문]Rapid Reviews in Zeiten von COVID-19 – Erfahrungen im Zuge des Kompetenznetzes Public Health zu COVID-19 und Vorschlag eines standardisierten Vorgehens

Seidler, Andreas; Nußbaumer-Streit, Barbara; Apfelbacher, Christian; Zeeb, Hajo

doi:10.1055/a-1380-0926

Rapid Reviews in Zeiten von COVID-19 – Erfahrungen im Zuge des Kompetenznetzes Public Health zu COVID-19 und Vorschlag eines standardisierten Vorgehens
Rapid Reviews in the Time of COVID-19 – Experiences of the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19 and Proposal for a Standardized Procedure 원문보기

Das Gesundheitswesen, v.83 no.3, 2021년, pp.173 - 179

Seidler, Andreas (Institut und Poliklinik fü) , Nußbaumer-Streit, Barbara (r Arbeits- und Sozialmedizin, Medizinische Fakultä) , Apfelbacher, Christian (t der TU Dresden) , Zeeb, Hajo (Zentrum Cochrane Ö)

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

AbstractAims During the COVID-19 pandemic, many health-related questions require rapid answers. In the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19, founded by representatives of several scientific societies in March 2020, rapid reviews are often conducted to generate evidence-based answers that are useful for policy makers. The aim of this paper is to reflect on the practical experience with rapid reviews in the context of the Competence Network Public Health. Methods for high-quality and practicable implementation of rapid reviews were developed, which are particularly helpful for rapid evidence generation based on observational studies. Methods Using the 8-step approach proposed by Tricco et al. [1], we describe the acute challenges that have arisen in the Public Health Competence Network COVID-19 while conducting rapid reviews on public health-related issues related to the COVID-19-pandemic. The 8 steps are: 1. conceptualization of the research question, 2. literature search, 3. title/abstract and full text screening, 4. data extraction, 5. risk of bias assessment, 6. evidence synthesis, 7. dissemination, 8. update. We develop a methodological approach for conducting rapid reviews by expert consensus of the members (n=42 as of 01/28/2021) of the Rapid Reviews Working Group in the Competence Network Public Health COVID-19. Results A standardized approach is presented that closely follows the approach of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and takes into account the special requirements of etiological – but often also ecological – observational studies on COVID-19. Conclusions The proposed approach for conducting rapid reviews can form an important basis for evidence-based policy advice – certainly beyond questions related to COVID-19. Flexible and rapid funding concepts should be made available for the short-term realization of methodologically high-quality rapid reviews on emerging questions. Scientific cooperation in conducting rapid reviews needs to be expanded, and more methodologically high-quality approaches such as prospective meta-analyses should be used.

Abstract

ZusammenfassungZiel Im Zuge der COVID-19-Pandemie benötigen viele gesundheitsrelevante Fragestellungen rasche Antworten. Im Kompetenznetz Public Health zu COVID-19, das im März 2020 von Vertreter:innen mehrerer wissenschaftlicher Fachgesellschaften gegründet wurde, werden vielfach Rapid Reviews erstellt, um rasch evidenzbasierte, für politische Entscheidungsträger:innen nutzbare Antworten zu generieren. Ziel dieses Beitrags ist es, die praktischen Erfahrungen bei der Durchführung von Rapid Reviews im Rahmen des Kompetenznetzes Public Health zu reflektieren. Auf dieser Grundlage sollen Methoden zur qualitativ hochwertigen und praktikablen Durchführung von Rapid Reviews entwickelt werden, die insbesondere auch zur raschen Evidenzgenerierung auf der Grundlage von Beobachtungsstudien anwendbar sind. Methodik Unter Nutzung des von Tricco et al. [1] vorgeschlagenen 8-schrittigen Vorgehens werden die aktuellen Herausforderungen beschrieben, die sich im Kompetenznetz Public Health zu COVID-19 bei der Durchführung von Rapid Reviews zu Public Health-bezogenen Fragen der COVID-19-Pandemie ergeben haben. Die 8 Schritte lauten: 1. Formulierung der Fragestellung, 2. Literatursuche, 3. Titel-Abstract- und Volltextsichtung, 4. Datenextraktion, 5. Risk of Bias-Bewertung, 6. Evidenzsynthese, 7. Dissemination, 8. Aktualisierung. Zudem werden Lösungsvorschläge im Expert:innenkonsens der Mitglieder (n=42 zum 28.01.2021) der Querschnitts-AG Rapid Reviews des Kompetenznetzes Public Health zu COVID-19 entwickelt. Ergebnisse Vorgelegt und zur Diskussion gestellt wird ein standardisiertes Vorgehen, das sich eng an das Vorgehen der Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group anlehnt und den besonderen Anforderungen von ätiologisch orientierten, häufig auch ökologischen Beobachtungsstudien zu COVID-19 Rechnung trägt. Schlussfolgerungen Das vorgeschlagene Vorgehen bei der Durchführung von Rapid Reviews kann – ggf. über Fragestellungen zu COVID-19 hinaus – eine wichtige Grundlage einer evidenzbasierten Politikberatung bilden. Zur kurzfristigen Realisierung von methodisch hochwertigen Rapid Reviews zu neuen Fragestellungen sollten flexible und kurzfristig aktivierbare Förderkonzepte bereitgestellt werden. Wissenschaftliche Kooperationen bei der Durchführung von Rapid Reviews sollten ausgebaut werden, dabei sollten verstärkt methodisch hochwertige Ansätze wie bspw. prospektive Metaanalysen Anwendung finden.

주제어

참고문헌 (21)

1 Tricco A C Garritty C M Boulos L Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps J Clin Epidemiol 2020 126 177 183 32615209

상세보기
2 Romero Starke K Petereit-Haack G Schubert M The Age-Related Risk of Severe Outcomes Due to COVID-19 Infection: A Rapid Review, Meta-Analysis, and Meta-Regression Int J Environ Res Public Health 2020 17 5974

상세보기
3 Garritty C Gartlehner G Kamel C
4 Heise T Seidler A Girbig M
5 Heise T L Seidler A Girbig M
6 Alayli AF G Witte C Haß W
7 Tricco A C Langlois E V Straus S eds. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. WHO (2017). Im Internet: https://apps.who.int/iris/bitstream/handle/10665/258698/9789241512763-eng.pdf; Stand: 10.01.2021
8 Tricco A C Antony J Zarin W A scoping review of rapid review methods BMC Medicine 2015 13 224 26377409

상세보기
9 Grant M J Booth A A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 2009 26 91 108
10 Khangura S Polisena J Clifford T J Rapid review: an emerging approach to evidence synthesis in health technology assessment International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2014 30 20 27 24451157

상세보기
11 Cochrane Methods. Risk of Bias 2 (RoB 2) Tool (2020). Im Internet: https://methods.cochrane.org/risk-bias-2; Stand: 18.01.2021
12 Sterne JA C Hernan M A McAleenan A
13 Whiting P F Rutjes A W Westwood M E QUADAS-2 Group. QUADAS-2: a revised tool for the quality assessment of diagnostic accuracy studies Ann Intern Med 2011 155 529 36 22007046
14 Wang Z Taylor K Allman-Farinelli M
15 Woodruff T J Sutton P The Navigation Guide systematic review methodology: a rigorous and transparent method for translating environmental health science into better health outcomes Environ Health Perspect 122 1007 14

상세보기
16 WHO. WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines Working Group on Risk of Bias Assessment. Risk of Bias assessment instrument for systematic reviews informing WHO Global Air Quality Guidelines (2020). Im Internet: https://www.euro.who.int/en/health-topics/environment-and-health/air-quality/publications/2020/risk-of-bias-assessment-instrument-for-systematic-reviews-informing-who-global-air-quality-guidelines-2020; Stand: 10.01.2021
17 Seidler A L Hunter K E Cheyne S A guide to prospective meta-analysis BMJ 2019 367 l5342 31597627
18 Seidler A L Hunter K E Cheyne S
19 WHO Rapid Evidence Appraisal for COVID-19 Therapies (REACT) Working Group. Association between administration of systemic corticosteroids and mortality among critically ill patients with COVID-19. A meta-analysis JAMA 2020 24 1330 1341
20 JPT Higgins Thomas J Chandler J
21 Hulshof CT J Colosio C Daams J G WHO/ILO work-related burden of disease and injury: Protocol for systematic reviews of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors and of the effect of exposure to occupational ergonomic risk factors on osteoarthritis of hip or knee and selected other musculoskeletal diseases Environ Int 2019 125 554 566 30583853

표제어: PCR

동의어: Packet Collision Rate

용어 설명 출처 목록 (6)

용어 설명: PCR은 세균 특이성이 있는 primer를 이용하여 적은 수의 세균이 있을지라도 쉽게 검출할 수 있는 유용한 방법이며, 이를 이용하여 구강 내 치면세균막이나 타액에서 직접 세균을 검출할 수 있게 되었다[8].

내보내기 구분	파일저장 인쇄 메일전송
구성항목	기본정보 상세정보 관리번호, 논문명, 저널/프로시딩명, 저자 , 발행년, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, 발행기관 관리번호, 논문명, 대등논문명, 저자 , 저널/프로시딩명, 발행기관, 발행년, 발행언어, 권, 호, 시작페이지, 끝페이지, ISBN, ISSN, 주제분야, 키워드, 초록(한글), 초록(영문), 저자(소속기관)
저장형식	Text(ASCII format) Excel format RefWorks Direct Export RIS format (for Reference Manager, ProCite, EndNote), Scholar's Aids, Mendeley
메일정보	받는사람 (필수) @ 보내는사람 (선택) @ 제목 내용 KISTI 검색결과 이메일 서비스
안내	총 건의 자료가 검색되었습니다. 다운받으실 자료의 인덱스를 입력하세요. (1-10,000) 검색결과의 순서대로 최대 10,000건 까지 다운로드가 가능합니다. 데이타가 많을 경우 속도가 느려질 수 있습니다.(최대 2~3분 소요) 다운로드 파일은 UTF-8 형태로 저장됩니다. 파일의 내용이 제대로 보이지 않을실 때는 웹브라우저 상단의 보기 -> 인코딩 -> 자동선택 여부를 확인하십시오. ~ Text(ASCII format) Excel format

연합인증

Abstract ▼ AI-Helper

Abstract

주제어

참고문헌 (21)

이 논문을 인용한 문헌

관련 콘텐츠

원문 보기

원문 URL 링크

오픈액세스(OA) 유형

이 논문과 함께 이용한 콘텐츠

AI-Helper ※ AI-Helper는 오픈소스 모델을 사용합니다.

선택된 텍스트