ArticleSystematic reviews2015
Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2015. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 62 papers, 13 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
62 citing papers in PubMed, 13 syntheses or guidelines pooled 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
- Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Some Interventions to Shift Meta-Norms Are Effective for Changing Behaviors in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Rapid Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Health information technology to support cancer survivorship care planning: A systematic review.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2021Pooled it
- Assessment of Studies Evaluating Spinal Manipulative Therapy and Infectious Disease and Immune System Outcomes: A Systematic Review.JAMA network open · 2021Pooled it
- Heat Treatment of Milk: A Rapid Review of the Impacts on Postprandial Protein and Lipid Kinetics in Human Adults.Frontiers in nutrition · 2021Pooled it
- Systematic review of systematic reviews for effectiveness of internal fixation for flail chest and rib fractures in adults.BMJ open · 2019Pooled it
- Incorporating patients' perspectives into the initial stages of core outcome set development: a rapid review of qualitative studies of type 2 diabetes.BMJ open diabetes research & care · 2019Pooled it
- Effectiveness of psychological interventions to improve quality of life in people with long-term conditions: rapid systematic review of randomised controlled trials.BMC psychology · 2018Pooled it
- Frameworks for embedding a research culture in allied health practice: a rapid review.Health research policy and systems · 2018Pooled it
- Healthy food procurement and nutrition standards in public facilities: evidence synthesis and consensus policy recommendations.Health promotion and chronic disease prevention in Canada : research, policy and practice · 2018Pooled it
- Pooled it
- What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.Health research policy and systems · 2016Pooled it
- Occupational advice to help people return to work following lower limb arthroplasty: the OPAL intervention mapping study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2020Trial
- Exploring adaptive health technology assessment for evaluating 10 cancer interventions: insights and lessons from a pilot study in India.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- How AI-Based Digital Rehabilitation Improves End-User Adherence: Rapid Review.JMIR rehabilitation and assistive technologies · 2025Review
- Addressing evidence needs during health crises in the province of Quebec (Canada): a proposed action plan for rapid evidence synthesis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: considerations and recommendations for evidence synthesis in rapid reviews.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Nature-based solutions in spatial planning and policies for climate change adaptation: A literature review.Ambio · 2024Review
- The Power of Rapid Reviews for Bridging the Knowledge-to-Action Gap in Evidence-Based Virtual Health Care.Journal of medical Internet research · 2024Article
2 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
9 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs.
methodsA systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented.
resultsA cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods.
conclusionsRR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards.
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.