What is a 2weekSR?
A 2 week systematic review (2weekSR) is a full systematic review (SR) done to a high methodological standard following all the normal systematic review processes, completed in a vastly shortened time frame. The 2weekSRs combine the following elements: a team with complementary SR skills, previous SR experience, systematic review automation (SRA) tools, and agile development processes. These factors allow for the completion of a SR in extremely shortened time frames – generally in 2 weeks.
Advancing systematic reviews to the point where they can be completed in two weeks has long been a dream of Paul Glasziou, Director of the Institute for Evidence-Based Healthcare (IEBH). When he mentioned that goal again in late 2018, several members of the IEBH team felt that IEBH’s automation and methodological development programmes were sufficiently advanced to attempt to complete a full systematic review in 2 weeks (2weekSR).
Therefore, a team of four experienced systematic reviewers with complementary skills attempted to complete a 2weekSR in January 2019: an epidemiologist (Anna Mae Scott), an information specialist (Justin Clark) and two clinician-researchers (Chris Del Mar and Paul Glasziou).
A topic was chosen, the team was set loose, and the clock started ticking at 9:30am on 21 January 2019.
The final product was a full systematic review using standard methodology, completed at 12:10pm on Friday, 1 February - 9 working days (11 calendar days) later. After taking a well-earned long weekend off, the team submitted the systematic review for publication on 5 February - 14 calendar days after starting the systematic review.
The results of this methodological race against the clock were written up and published in the British Journal of General Practice (the systematic review itself), and the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (the processes and methods paper).
A Full Systematic Review Was Completed in 2 Weeks Using Automation Tools: A Case Study
https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/32004673/
Abstract Our aim was to describe the process, facilitators, and barriers to completing the first 2-week full SR. We systematically reviewed evidence of the impact of increased fluid intake, on urinary tract infection (UTI) recurrence, in individuals at risk for UTIs. The review was conducted by experienced systematic reviewers with complementary skills (two researcher clinicians, an information specialist, and an epidemiologist), using Systematic Review Automation tools, and blocked off time for the duration of the project. The SR was completed in 61 person-hours (9 workdays; 12 calendar days); accepted version of the manuscript required 71 person-hours. In conclusion, a small and experienced team, using Systematic Review Automation tools, who have protected time to focus solely on the SR can complete a moderately sized SR in 2 weeks.
|
SR task no. |
Tasks |
SR Domain |
Skill needed |
Description |
|
a1 |
Lead in time |
Pre-planning |
Supervisor support |
Time spent completing other work to allow SR authors to focus on the 2 week SR |
|
a2 |
SR design meetings |
Pre-planning |
SR methodology |
Time spent refining the idea, determining feasibility, assembling the team, planning timelines, deciding on roles (who's responsible for oversight, coordination and documentation) and provide information on SRA tools |
|
0 |
Daily administrative meetings |
Administrative |
SR methodology |
Short daily meetings to review progress, discuss issues and document decisions |
|
1 |
Formulate SR question |
Writing |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Final decision on the research question (PICO) |
|
2 |
Find and review existing or upcoming SRs |
Data collection |
Information specialist & content expertise |
Search for and review existing SRs that answers the same or a similar question. |
|
3 |
Write the SR protocol |
Writing |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Provide an objective, reproducible, sound methodology for the SR, then register the protocol |
|
4 |
Design data extraction form |
Data analysis |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Design forms for extracting study characteristics and test their usefulness/applicability |
|
5 |
Obtain set of relevant studies |
Data collection |
Content expertise & information specialist |
Identify a small sample of studies relevant to the review, to aid with designing the search and data extraction form. |
|
6 |
Design systematic search strategy |
Data collection |
Information specialist & Content expertise |
Design search strategy to find all relevant information(choose databases; develop search string) |
|
7 |
Run systematic search strings |
Data collection |
Information specialist |
Run search strings in databases, trial registries, collate results in reference management system (e.g. EndNote) |
|
8 |
Deduplicate results |
Data collection |
Information specialist |
Remove duplicate citations |
|
9 |
Screen abstracts |
Data selection |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Screen titles and abstracts, exclude irrelevant citations, resolve disputes |
|
10 |
Obtain full text |
Data collection |
Information specialist |
Download full text studies, request copies from authors, interlibrary loan |
|
11 |
Screen full text |
Data selection |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Screen full text of articles, exclude irrelevant citations, resolve disputes |
|
12 |
Screen trial registries |
Data selection |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Based on title and text in the trial registry entry: exclude irrelevant citations, resolve disputes |
|
13 |
Citation analysis |
Data collection |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Follow citations, cited and citing, from included studies to find additional relevant studies |
|
14 |
Screen citation analysis |
Data selection |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Screen titles and abstracts, and full texts exclude irrelevant citations, resolve disputes |
|
15 |
Extract data |
Data analysis |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Extract study characteristics and relevant outcomes plan data presentation? - how will things be presented in the paper? Loai and I spent a while discussing and trying to work that out |
|
16 |
Risk of Bias assessment |
Data analysis |
SR methodology |
Assess the potential biases in included studies |
|
17 |
Synthesise data |
Data analysis |
SR methodology & statistics |
Convert extracted outcome data to common representation (usually mean and SD) |
|
18 |
Meta-analysis |
Data analysis |
SR methodology & statistics |
Statistically combine the results using meta-analysis or other statistical synthesis |
|
19 |
GRADE evidence |
Data analysis |
SR methodology & statistics |
Optional: rate the certainty of evidence for a treatment efficacy from high to very low |
|
20 |
Summary of findings |
Data analysis |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Optional: summarise the main findngs of the SR in a table |
|
21 |
Update systematic search strategy |
Data collection |
Information specialist |
Optional: repeat the search to find new studies published since the initial search, especially if search more than a year old |
|
22 |
Write introduction |
Writing |
Content expertise |
Revise the introduction section from the SR protocol |
|
23 |
Write methods |
Writing |
SR methodology |
Revise the methods section from the SR protocol |
|
24 |
Write results |
Writing |
Content expertise & SR methodology |
Write the results section of the SR |
|
25 |
Write discussion |
Writing |
Content expertise |
Write the discussion and conclusion sections of the SR |
|
26 |
Submit manuscript |
Writing |
Authorship experience |
Format manuscript to meet journal requirements, complete online forms and submit manuscript |
|
27 |
Reformat and resubmit manuscript |
Writing |
Authorship experience |
If rejected, reformat manuscript to meet new journal requirements and standards, and submit (if accepted skip this task) |
|
28 |
Manuscript revisions |
Writing |
Authorship experience |
Revise manuscript due to comments from peer reviewers, and resubmit it |
|
29 |
Manuscript accepted |
Writing |
Authorship experience |
Review manuscript, and copy edit any errors or issues |
|
30 |
Manuscript published |
Writing |
Authorship experience |
Send the details around to everyone you know, and enjoy the kudos |
|
SR task no. |
Tasks |
Automation tool used |
Automation tool link/help guide |
Automation tool citation |
|
6 |
Design systematic search strategy |
Word Frequency Analyser |
||
|
6 |
Design systematic search strategy |
The SearchRefiner |
|
|
|
7 |
Run systematic search strings |
The Polyglot Search Translator |
||
|
9 |
Screen abstracts |
RobotSearch |
||
|
9 |
Screen abstracts |
SRA Helper |
||
|
10 |
Obtain full text |
SRA Helper |
||
|
10 |
Obtain full text |
SARA |
||
|
16 |
Risk of Bias assessment |
Robot Reviewer |
||
|
24 |
Write results |
RevMan Replicant |
Follow us on @2weekSR for live-tweets of our 2weekSRs!
Training options
The Institute offers multiple training opportunities in 2weekSR methods. For more information on what is available and the cost structure, please download our FLYER or send us an email through the contact section below.
Core team
The 2weekSR author team you need
- An experienced systematic reviewer: to be in charge of the majority of SR tasks (e.g. screening, extracting)
- A second systematic reviewer: to work with the first reviewer on the majority of SR tasks (e.g. screening, extracting)
- Information specialist: to ensure a high precision search is designed and run in a fast time
- Systematic review methodologist: to provide advice on what is needed to perform the SR to a high quality
- Content expert: to ensure the SR is done in a way of interest to its potential user base, also to provide content specific information to the protocol and manuscript
- Epidemiologist/Statistician: to make sure your stats are done properly
Current projects
- Head of Bed Positioning for Gastroesophageal Reflux Disease (GERD) - completed, due for submission end of July
- Hiprex for UTIs
Completed projects
#1 (2019): Increased fluid intake to prevent UTIs
SR itself:
Scott, A.M., Clark, J., Del Mar, C. and Glasziou, P., 2020. Increased fluid intake to prevent urinary tract infections: systematic review and meta-analysis. British Journal of General Practice, 70(692), pp.e200-e207.
Processes paper:
Clark, J., Glasziou, P., Del Mar, C., Bannach-Brown, A., Stehlik, P. and Scott, A.M., 2020. A full systematic review was completed in 2 weeks using automation tools: a case study. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 121, pp.81-90.
#2 (2019): Self-management of lower urinary tract symptoms
• SR itself: in peer review
#3 (2020): Impact of copper-treated surfaces on healthcare-acquired infections
• SR itself: in peer review
#4 (2020): Asymptomatic people and Covid
SR submitted and article in preprint: Byambasuren, O., Cardona, M., Bell, K., Clark, J., McLaws, M., and Glasziou, P. 2020. Estimating the extent of true asymptomatic COVID-19 and its potential for community transmission: systematic review and meta-analysis.
#5 (2020): Seroprevalence of past Covid-19 infection
SR submitted
#6 (2020): Harms and adverse events associated with wearing face-masks
SR submitted
Resources
Please click on the link below to download the template:
Other publications
Clark, J., Scott, A.M. and Glasziou, P., 2020. Not All Systematic Reviews Can Be Completed in 2 Weeks-But Many Can Be (And Should Be). Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, pp.S0895-4356.
Want more information?
If you are interested in conducting a 2 week systematic review or want further information, please contact us!