Securing Global Trademark Exceptions: Why the United States Should Negotiate Mandatory Exceptions into Future International Bilateral Agreements

In December 2007, the European Union and the CARIFORUM States concluded a bilateral economic partnership agreement that included a mandatory fair use exception to trademark owners\u27 rights. The EC-CARIFORUM Agreement is the first agreement that mandates the inclusion of Article 17 of the World Trade Organization\u27s Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights and requires an exception to trademark rights. The push to balance international trademark owners\u27 rights has begun, and this Note will detail why the United States should follow the European Union\u27s lead and negotiate mandatory trademark exceptions into future bilateral agreements

Securing Global Trademark Exceptions: Why the United States Should Negotiate Mandatory Exceptions into Future International Bilateral Agreements

In December 2007, the European Union and the CARIFORUM States concluded a bilateral economic partnership agreement that included a mandatory fair use exception to trademark owners\u27 rights. The EC-CARIFORUM Agreement is the first agreement that mandates the inclusion of Article 17 of the World Trade Organization\u27s Agreement on Trade-Related Intellectual Property Rights and requires an exception to trademark rights. The push to balance international trademark owners\u27 rights has begun, and this Note will detail why the United States should follow the European Union\u27s lead and negotiate mandatory trademark exceptions into future bilateral agreements

Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey

Background Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews—they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests. Methods We developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world. Results All participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively). Conclusion Our survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted

How to develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests according to experts: A qualitative exploration of researcher views

Background: Rapid reviews (RRs) have been used to provide timely evidence for policymakers, health providers, and the public in several healthcare scenarios, most recently during the coronavirus disease 2019 pandemic. Despite the essential role of diagnosis in clinical management, data about how to perform RRs of diagnostic tests are scarce. We aimed to explore the views and perceptions of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence about the value of methods used to accelerate the review process. Methods: We performed semistructured interviews with a purposive sample of experts in evidence synthesis and diagnostic evidence. We carried out the interviews in English between July and December 2021. Initial reading and coding of the transcripts were performed using NVIVO qualitative data analysis software. Results: Of a total of 23 invited experts, 16 (70%) responded. We interviewed all 16 participants representing key roles in evidence synthesis. We identified 14 recurring themes including the review question, characteristics of the review team, and use of automation, as the topics with the highest number of quotes. Some participants considered several methodological “shortcuts” to be ineffective or risky, such as automating quality appraisal, using only one reviewer for diagnostic data extraction and only performing descriptive analysis. The introduction of limits might depend on whether the test being assessed is a new test, the availability of alternative tests, the needs of providers and patients, and the availability of high‐quality systematic reviews. Conclusions: Our findings suggest that organizational strategies (e.g., defining the review question, availability of a highly experienced team) may have a role in conducting RRs of diagnostic tests. Several methodological shortcuts were considered inadequate for accelerating the review process, though they need to be assessed in well‐designed studies. Improved reporting of RRs would support evidence‐based decision‐making and help users of RRs understand their limitations

Challenges of rapid reviews for diagnostic test accuracy questions: a protocol for an international survey and expert consultation

Background: Assessment of diagnostic tests, broadly defined as any element that aids in the collection of additional information for further clarification of a patient’s health status, has increasingly become a critical issue in health policy and decision-making. Diagnostic evidence, including the accuracy of a medical test for a target condition, is commonly appraised using standard systematic review methodology. Owing to the considerable time and resources required to conduct these, rapid reviews have emerged as a pragmatic alternative by tailoring methods according to the decision maker’s circumstances. However, it is not known if streamlining methodological aspects has an impact on the validity of evidence synthesis. Furthermore, due to the particular nature and complexity of the appraisal of diagnostic accuracy, there is need for detailed guidance on how to conduct rapid reviews of diagnostic tests. In this study, we aim to identify the methods currently used by rapid review developers to synthesize evidence on diagnostic test accuracy, as well as to analyze potential shortcomings and challenges related to these methods. Methods: We will carry out a two-fold approach: (1) an international survey of professionals working in organizations that develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests, in terms of the methods and resources used by these agencies when conducting rapid reviews, and (2) semi-structured interviews with senior-level individuals to further explore and validate the findings from the survey and to identify challenges in conducting rapid reviews. We will use STATA 15.0 for quantitative analyses and framework analysis for qualitative analyses. We will ensure protection of data during all stages. Discussion: The main result of this research will be a map of methods and resources currently used for conducting rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy, as well as methodological shortcomings and potential solutions in diagnostic knowledge synthesis that require further research

A scoping review found increasing examples of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses and no methodological guidance

Objectives: To identify existing methodological guidance for the conduct of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses, and examples of rapid qualitative evidence syntheses to describe the methods used. Study Design and Setting: We conducted a systematic scoping review. We searched MEDLINE, CINAHL, grey literature, including PROSPERO, with no date limits and solicited examples through experts and researchers in the field. Results: We found no methodological guidance to direct the conduct of rapid qualitative evidence synthesis, and 15 examples including 13 completed reviews and two protocols. Diverse methods to abbreviate the review process were followed, which largely mirror methods developed for rapid reviews of clinical effects. Abbreviated search strategies, including date and language restrictions, were common, as was the use of a single reviewer for screening, data extraction and quality appraisal. Descriptive approaches to synthesis, such as thematic synthesis, were more common than interpretive approaches, such as meta-ethnography. Conclusion: There is a need to develop and explore methods for the synthesis of qualitative research that balance the need for rapidity with rigour. In the meantime, providing details on the methods used, shortcuts made, and the implications of such methodological choices, together with collective sharing of innovations, becomes more important under increased time constraints

Rapid reviews of medical tests used many similar methods to systematic reviews but key items were rarely reported: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND Rapid reviews provide an efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews in response to a high priority or urgent need. Although rapid reviews of interventions have been extensively evaluated, little is known about the characteristics of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING We performed a scoping review for rapid reviews of medical tests published from 2013 to 2018. We extracted information on review characteristics and methods used to assess the evidence. RESULTS We identified 191 rapid reviews. All reviews were developed within a short time (less than 12 months) and were relatively concise (less than 10 pages). The reviews involved multiple index tests (44%), multiple outcomes (88%), and several test applications (29%). Well-known methodological tailoring strategies were infrequently used. Although reporting of several key features was limited, we found that, in general, rapid reviews have similar characteristics to broader knowledge syntheses. CONCLUSION Our scoping review is the first to describe the characteristics and methods of rapid reviews of diagnostic evidence. Future research should identify the most appropriate methods for performing rapid reviews of medical tests. Standards for reporting of rapid reviews are needed