Review Ready Reckoner - Assessment Tool (RRRsAT)1

Evidence Mapping Scoping Rapid Rapid Systematic Systematic Review of

Factor Briefing Review Review Evidence Realist Review Review Reviews
Assessment Review (Attitudes) (Effects)
Narrow Focused Broad Question Narrow Partially Narrow Focused Starts with Narrow Question Narrow Focused Broad Question
Review question Question Anchored by One
or More Elements
Focused
Question
Question Narrow Question,
often extended by
Co-terminous with
Effects Question
Question Typically Focused
on Two or Three
Analogy/Theory OR Broader Common
Question on Elements
Phenomenon
Seeks to depict Seeks to Seeks to interpret Seeks to maintain Seeks to convey Seeks to achieve Seeks to describe Seeks to
Epistemology an Objective
Reality through a
acknowledge
multiple possible
an initial question
through a
Distance and
Impartiality when
that Outcomes
are dependent on
Proximity to
Views of
Objective
Causality (Cause
reconcile multiple
“Objective” yet
judicious, Perspectives reconciliation of examining the Context in Participants and and Effect) occasionally
pragmatic and yet within the Relatedness and programmes/ which they are thereby imbue conflicting
representative constraints of Practicality interventions sought. Findings with perspectives
body of best Practicality within a Policy Authenticity through
available Context explanations of
evidence method, study
quality and
included studies
2 weeks 4-16 weeks 8 weeks OR 8-24 weeks 8-24 weeks 36-52 weeks 52-78 weeks 12-24 weeks
Time/Timescale 24 weeks
Single Reviewer Single Reviewer Single Reviewer Double Reviewer Double Reviewer Double Reviewer Double Reviewer Double Reviewer
Resources Limited
Databases
Comprehensive
Databases (may
Limited
Databases
Limited
Databases
Limited
Databases
Comprehensive
or Purposive
Comprehensive
Databases
Comprehensive
Databases
be Sampled) Databases

1
Largely based on: BOOTH, A., NOYES J, FLEMMING K, GERHARDUS, A., WAHLSTER, P., VAN DER WILT, G.J., MOZYGEMBA, K., REFOLO, P., SACCHINI, D., TUMMERS, M., REHFUESS, E. (2016)
Guidance on choosing qualitative evidence synthesis methods for use in health technology assessments of complex interventions [Online]. Available from: http://www.integrate-hta.eu/downloads/
and http://www.integrate-hta.eu/wp-content/uploads/2016/02/Guidance-on-choosing-qualitative-evidence-synthesis-methods-for-use-in-HTA-of-complex-interventions.pdf AND BOOTH A. EVIDENT
Guidance for Reviewing the Evidence: a compendium of methodological literature and websites (Working Paper) · February 2016. Available at
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/292991575_EVIDENT_Guidance_for_Reviewing_the_Evidence_a_compendium_of_methodological_literature_and_websites AND BOOTH A, SUTTON A and
PAPAIOANNOU, D (2016) – Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review (2nd ed), London: Sage.
 Evidence Mapping Scoping Rapid Rapid Realist Systematic Systematic Review of
Factor Briefing Review Review Evidence Review Review Review Reviews
Assessment (Attitudes) (Effects)
Search ** Search *** Search ** Search ** Search *** Search *** Search *** Search *
Expertise (Search Appraisal * Appraisal Appraisal Appraisal ** Appraisal * Appraisal ** Appraisal *** Appraisal */**
AppraisaL Synthesis Synthesis ** Synthesis ** Synthesis * Synthesis * Synthesis *** Synthesis *** Synthesis *** Synthesis **/***
Analysis) Analysis *** Analysis * Analysis * Analysis *** Analysis *** Analysis * Analysis * Analysis *
Total = 8* Total = 6* Total = 4* Total = 8* Total =10* Total = 9* Total = 8* Total = 5*-7*
Policy Makers Policy Makers Research Policy Makers Policy Makers Practitioners Practitioners Policy Makers
Audience and Research
Commissioners
Research
Commissioners
Commissioners
Review Teams
Policy Makers Policy Makers Research
Commissioners
purpose Practitioners Review Teams
1. Quantitative 1. Specific Study 1. Specific Study 1. Quantitative 1. Quantitative 1. Qualitative 1. RCTs only +/- 1. Systematic
Type of Data Studies +/-
2. Qualitative
Types +/-
2. Systematic
Types +/-
2. Systematic
Studies +/-
2. Qualitative
Studies
2. Qualitative
Studies +/-
2. Qualitative
2. Specific Study
Designs OR
Reviews +/-
2. Other Review
Studies AND Reviews +/- Reviews +/- Studies AND Studies Data 3. All Study Types
3. Local/Regional/ 3. Other Review 3. Other Review 3. Stakeholders/ 3. Opinion Pieces Designs 3. Included
National data on Types Types Experts 4. Stakeholders/ Studies identified
Context Experts via Reviews
5. Primary Data
 Evidence Mapping Scoping Rapid Rapid Systematic Systematic Review of
Item Briefing Review Review Evidence Realist Review Review Reviews
Assessment Review (Attitudes) (Effects)
Chambers, D., & James KL, Arksey, H., & Thomas, J., et al. Saul J, et al Tong A, et al. A Higgins JPT, Smith, V., et al.
Key Methodological Wilson, P.
(2012). A
Randall NP,
Haddaway NR.
O'Malley, L.
(2005). Scoping
(2013). Rapid
evidence
(2013) A time-
responsive tool
guide to reading
and using
Green S
(editors).
(2011).
Methodology in
Reference framework for A methodology studies: towards assessments of for informing systematic Cochrane conducting a
production of for systematic a methodological research to policy making: reviews of Handbook for systematic
systematic mapping in framework. inform rapid realist qualitative Systematic review of
review based environmental International social policy: review. research. Reviews of systematic
briefings sciences. Journal of Social taking stock and Implement Sci; Nephrol Dial Interventions. reviews of
to support Environmental Research moving forward. 8:103. Transplant. 2016 Version 5.1.0 healthcare
evidence- Evidence 2016;5 Methodology, 8( Evidence & Jun; 31(6): 897- [updated March interventions.
informed 1): 19-32. Policy, 9(1), 5- 903. 2011]. The BMC medical
decision-making. 27. Cochrane research
Systematic Collaboration, methodology, 11
reviews, 1(1), 1- 2011. Available (1), 1.
8. from
www.handbook.c
ochrane.org .
SURE evidence Osei-Kwasi, H. King JL, McMurran, M. Willis, C. D. et al. Archibald, D., et Orrow, G. et al. Lau R, et al.
Indicative Example policy briefs
http://www.who.i
A., et al. (2016).
Systematic
Pomeranz JL,
Merten JW
(2012). (2014). al (2015). A (2012). Achieving
Individual‐level Improving qualitative Effectiveness of change in
nt/evidence/sure/ mapping review (2014). Nutrition interventions for organizational evidence physical activity primary
policybriefs/en/ of the factors interventions for alcohol‐related capacity to synthesis on the promotion based care--causes of
influencing people with violence: A rapid address health management of in primary care: the evidence to
dietary disabilities: a evidence literacy in public male obesity. systematic practice gap:
behaviour in scoping review. assessment. health: a rapid BMJ Open, review and meta- systematic
ethnic minority Disabil Health J. Criminal realist review. 5(10), e008372. analysis of reviews of
groups living in Apr;7(2):157-63. behaviour and Public health, doi:10.1136/bmjo randomised reviews.
Europe. mental 128(6), 515- pen-2015- controlled trials. Implement Sci.
International health, 22(1), 14- 524. 008372 BMJ, 344(mar26 2016 Mar
Journal of 28. 1), 22;11:40.
Behavioral e1389–e1389.
Nutrition and doi:10.1136/bmj.
Physical Activity, e1389
13(1).
 Evidence Mapping Scoping Rapid Rapid Systematic Systematic Review of
Item Briefing Review Review Evidence Realist Review Review Reviews
Assessment Review (Attitudes) (Effects)
Wilson P & Hayday S et al. Fisher JD, et al. Booth, A. et al. Rycroft-Malone, Morrell, C. J., et Carroll C, et al Booth, A.,
NIHR/Govt Example Chambers, D. (2007) Patient safety in (2011) Alcohol J., Burton, C., al. (2016). A (2013). Clinical Cantrell, A.,
(2011) Evidence Guidance for ambulance pricing and Wilkinson, J., systematic effectiveness Preston, L.,
briefing on Primary Care services: a criminal harm: a Harvey, G., review, and cost- Chambers, D.,
integrated care Services and scoping review. rapid evidence McCormack, B., evidence effectiveness of & Goyder, E.
pathways in Employers on Southampton assessment of Baker, R., ... & synthesis and minimally (2015). What is
mental health the (UK): NIHR the published Ariss, S. (2015). meta-analysis of invasive the evidence for
settings. Centre Management of Journals research Collective action quantitative and techniques to the
for Reviews & Long-term Library; 2015 literature. for knowledge qualitative manage effectiveness,
Dissemination. Sickness and May. Sheffield: mobilisation: a studies varicose veins: appropriateness
https://www.yor Incapacity: ScHARR realist evaluating the a systematic and feasibility of
k.ac.uk/media/cr Mapping https://www.gov evaluation of clinical review and group clinics for
d/Integrated%2 Review. NICE. .uk/government/ the effectiveness, economic patients with
0care%20pathw uploads/system/ Collaborations the cost- evaluation. chronic
ays%20evidenc uploads/attach for Leadership effectiveness, Health Technol conditions? A
e%20briefing.pd ment_data/file/9 in Applied safety and Assess systematic
f 8138/rapid- Health acceptability of 2013;17(48) review. Health
evidence- Research and interventions to Serv Deliv Res,
assessment.pdf Care. Health prevent 3(46), 1–194.
Services and postnatal doi:10.3310/hsd
Delivery depression. r03460
Research, 3(44) Health
. Technology
Assessment, 20
(37).

Andrew Booth – A.Booth@sheffield.ac.uk (09/09/2016)