ArticleSystematic reviews2012
Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2012. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 425 papers, 30 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
425 citing papers in PubMed, 30 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- A rapid review of digital health applications supporting self-care during pregnancy and postpartum period.BMC pregnancy and childbirth · 2026Pooled it
- Biomarker tests of progression from tuberculosis infection to disease: a systematic review.European respiratory review : an official journal of the European Respiratory Society · 2026Pooled it
- Nutritional Deficiencies Following Bariatric Surgery: A Rapid Systematic Review of Case Reports of Vitamin and Micronutrient Deficiencies Presenting More Than Two Years Post-Surgery.Clinical obesity · 2025Pooled it
- Barriers and Facilitators for Implementation of Palliative Care for Patients with Heart failure - a Rapid Synthesis of Reviews.Current heart failure reports · 2025Pooled it
- Relationship between staff experience and patient outcomes in hospital settings: an overview of reviews.BMJ open · 2025Pooled it
- How much can we save by applying artificial intelligence in evidence synthesis? Results from a pragmatic review to quantify workload efficiencies and cost savings.Frontiers in pharmacology · 2025Pooled it
- Effectiveness of e-cigarettes as a stop smoking intervention in adults: a systematic review.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Screening for depression in children and adolescents in primary care or non-mental health settings: a systematic review update.Systematic reviews · 2024Pooled it
- Biases and limitations in observational studies of Long COVID prevalence and risk factors: A rapid systematic umbrella review.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- Chronic immune-related adverse events in patients with cancer receiving immune checkpoint inhibitors: a systematic review.Journal for immunotherapy of cancer · 2023Pooled it
- Sex Education in Italy: An Overview of 15 Years of Projects in Primary and Secondary Schools.Archives of sexual behavior · 2023Pooled it
- Effectiveness and implementation of interventions for health promotion in urgent and emergency care settings: an umbrella review.BMC emergency medicine · 2023Pooled it
- The impact of COVID-19 on the mental health workforce: A rapid review.International journal of mental health nursing · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Association between public health emergencies and sexual and reproductive health, gender-based violence, and early marriage among adolescent girls: a rapid review.BMC public health · 2023Pooled it
- A rapid review of community engagement and informed consent processes for adaptive platform trials and alternative design trials for public health emergencies.Wellcome open research · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Options for modifying UK alcohol and tobacco tax: A rapid scoping review of the evidence over the period 1997-2018.NIHR open research · 2023Pooled it
- The World Health Organization (WHO) Integrated Care for Older People (ICOPE) Framework: A Narrative Review on Its Adoption Worldwide and Lessons Learnt.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
365 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined approach to synthesizing evidence - typically for informing emergent decisions faced by decision makers in health care settings. Although there is growing use of rapid review 'methods', and proliferation of rapid review products, there is a dearth of published literature on rapid review methodology. This paper outlines our experience with rapidly producing, publishing and disseminating evidence summaries in the context of our Knowledge to Action (KTA) research program.
methodsThe KTA research program is a two-year project designed to develop and assess the impact of a regional knowledge infrastructure that supports evidence-informed decision making by regional managers and stakeholders. As part of this program, we have developed evidence summaries - our form of rapid review - which have come to be a flagship component of this project. Our eight-step approach for producing evidence summaries has been developed iteratively, based on evidence (where available), experience and knowledge user feedback. The aim of our evidence summary approach is to deliver quality evidence that is both timely and user-friendly.
resultsFrom November 2009 to March 2011 we have produced 11 evidence summaries on a diverse range of questions identified by our knowledge users. Topic areas have included questions of clinical effectiveness to questions on health systems and/or health services. Knowledge users have reported evidence summaries to be of high value in informing their decisions and initiatives. We continue to experiment with incorporating more of the established methods of systematic reviews, while maintaining our capacity to deliver a final product in a timely manner.
conclusionsThe evolution of the KTA rapid review evidence summaries has been a positive one. We have developed an approach that appears to be addressing a need by knowledge users for timely, user-friendly, and trustworthy evidence and have transparently reported these methods here for the wider rapid review and scientific community.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.