ArticleSystematic reviews2015
Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda.
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 13 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
13 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Rapid Evidence Review of Bariatric Surgery in Super Obesity (BMI ≥ 50 kg/mJournal of general internal medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Living Rapid Research Needs Appraisal (RRNA) for Priority Diseases Protocol.Wellcome open research · 2025Article
- Translating international guidelines for use in routine maternal and neonatal healthcare quality measurement.Global health action · 2020Review
- Invited commentary-WHO Classification of Tumours: How should tumors be classified? Expert consensus, systematic reviews or both?International journal of cancer · 2020Article
- Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Home Health and Community Care Workers' Occupational Exposure to Secondhand Smoke: A Rapid Literature Review.Nicotine & tobacco research : official journal of the Society for Research on Nicotine and Tobacco · 2019Review
- Evaluation of an HIV-specific rapid response service for community-based organisations in Ontario, Canada.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Optimal literature search for systematic reviews in surgery.Langenbeck's archives of surgery · 2018Review
- Five shared decision-making tools in 5 months: use of rapid reviews to develop decision boxes for seniors living with dementia and their caregivers.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- Assessing the validity of abbreviated literature searches for rapid reviews: protocol of a non-inferiority and meta-epidemiologic study.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
- The use of rapid review methods in health technology assessments: 3 case studies.BMC medical research methodology · 2016Article
- User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making.Systematic reviews · 2016Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
The demand for accelerated forms of evidence synthesis is on the rise, largely in response to requests by health care decision makers for expeditious assessment and up-to-date information about health care technologies and health services and programs. As a field, rapid review evidence synthesis is marked by a tension between the strategic priority to inform health care decision-making and the scientific imperative to produce robust, high-quality research that soundly supports health policy and practice. In early 2015, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health convened a forum in partnership with the British Columbia Ministry of Health, the British Columbia Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and the University of Pennsylvania. More than 150 evidence synthesis producers and end users attended the Rapid Review Summit: Then, Now and in the Future. The Summit program focused on the evolving role and practices of rapid reviews to support informed health care policy and clinical decision-making, including the uptake and use of health technology assessment. Our discussion paper highlights the important discussions that occurred during the Rapid Review Summit. It focuses on the initial development of a research agenda that resulted from the Summit presentations and discussions. The research topics centered on three key areas of interest: (1) how to conduct a rapid review; (2) investigating the validity and utility of rapid reviews; and (3) how to improve access to rapid reviews.
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.