Grant: Project Grant
Unity Health Toronto
$638,356.00
Systematic Prospective Assessment of Rapid Knowledge Synthesis - SPARKS Study
FY 2015-16
Summary
Systematic reviews can be very useful to decision-makers, such as government representatives, healthcare providers, and patients. However, systematic reviews take a long time and money to complete because of the strict methods that are followed. Rapid reviews can be used to take short cuts in the methods used so that they can be done in a shorter period of time for a lower cost. But this means that the quality of the results from a rapid review might not be trustworthy. Numerous research groups produce rapid reviews for decision-makers internationally but a study formally comparing the results from rapid reviews to systematic reviews on the same topic does not exist. Our goal is to examine the science behind rapid review methods through a prospective study that will compare the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews on the same topics.
This will be done through a study called "Systematic Prospective Assessment of Rapid Knowledge Synthesis" (or the SPARKS Study).
Department
Program
Project Grant
Recipient
Location
Ontario, Canada
Recipient Type
Other
Type
Grant
Source
CIHR Funding Decisions Database
As published
Id
343779
Name
Tricco Andrea C
Region
Ontario
Country
Canada
Orgtype
Institution Paid; Research Institution
Instname2
Health Services and Policy Research
Theme2
Health systems / services
Prcname2
Project Grant Competition
Projecttitle
Systematic Prospective Assessment of Rapid Knowledge Synthesis - SPARKS Study
Programtype2
Operating Grants
Orgnameinp2
Unity Health Toronto
Cihramount2
$638,356
Cihrequipment2
$0
Programname2
Project Grant
Keyworddelim
Comparative Study; Decision Making; Knowledge Synthesis; Knowledge Translation; Knowledge Users; Methodological Research; Prospective Study; Rapid Review; Reliability; Systematic Review
Abstract
Systematic reviews can be very useful to decision-makers, such as government representatives, healthcare providers, and patients. However, systematic reviews take a long time and money to complete because of the strict methods that are followed. Rapid reviews can be used to take short cuts in the methods used so that they can be done in a shorter period of time for a lower cost. But this means that the quality of the results from a rapid review might not be trustworthy. Numerous research groups produce rapid reviews for decision-makers internationally but a study formally comparing the results from rapid reviews to systematic reviews on the same topic does not exist. Our goal is to examine the science behind rapid review methods through a prospective study that will compare the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews on the same topics.
This will be done through a study called "Systematic Prospective Assessment of Rapid Knowledge Synthesis" (or the SPARKS Study).
Competitiondate
201603
Approvedterm2
3 yrs 6 mths
Pinamesdelim
Tricco, Andrea C; Clifford, Tammy J; Straus, Sharon E
Approvedterm
3 ans 6 mois
Cihrcontribution2
~ $638,356~ $0~
