ReviewSystematic reviews2016
Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines.
Review in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 39 papers, 6 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
39 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Pooled it
- Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Blockchain and Fog Computing in IoT-Driven Healthcare Services for Smart Cities.Journal of healthcare engineering · 2022Pooled it
- Corporate social responsibility and workplace health promotion: A systematic review.Frontiers in psychology · 2022Pooled it
- Retention in opioid agonist treatment: a rapid review and meta-analysis comparing observational studies and randomized controlled trials.Systematic reviews · 2021Pooled it
- The Validity, Reliability, and Feasibility of Measurement Tools Used to Assess Sleep of Pre-school Aged Children: A Systematic Rapid Review.Frontiers in pediatrics · 2021Pooled it
- How to formulate high-quality lessons learned: a rapid review.Global health action · 2025Review
- Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Methodological and reporting quality of systematic and rapid reviews on human mpox and their utility during a public health emergency.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2024Article
- Urinary incontinence (UI) in older women in low- and middle-income countries: a rapid review and case study from Burkina Faso.Frontiers in global women's health · 2024Article
- Exploring the effects of adiponectin and leptin in correlating obesity with cognitive decline: a systematic review.Annals of medicine and surgery (2012) · 2023Article
- Reporting and methodological quality of systematic reviews of DPP-4 inhibitors for patients with type 2 diabetes mellitus: an evidence-based mapping.Acta diabetologica · 2022Review
- Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research.Systematic reviews · 2022Review
- Association between continuity of care (COC), healthcare use and costs: what can we learn from claims data? A rapid review.BMC health services research · 2022Review
- What Works to Improve Nutrition and Food Sustainability across the First 2000 Days of Life: A Rapid Review.Nutrients · 2022Review
- Toward an inclusive digital health system for sexual and gender minorities in Canada.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2022Article
- Virtual versus Face-to-Face Cognitive Behavioral Treatment of Depression: Meta-Analytic Test of a Noninferiority Hypothesis and Men's Mental Health Inequities.Depression research and treatment · 2022Review
- Methodological Quality Analysis of Systematic Review for the Treatment of Rotator Cuff Disease.Revista brasileira de ortopedia · 2021Article
- A rapid review of gender, sex, and sexual orientation documentation in electronic health records.Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association : JAMIA · 2020Review
- Planning for Mental Health Needs During COVID-19.Current psychiatry reports · 2020Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid reviews are an accelerated evidence synthesis approach intended to meet the timely needs of decision-makers in healthcare settings. Quality of conduct and reporting has been described in the rapid review literature; however, no formal assessment has been carried out using available instruments. The objective of this study was to explore compliance with conduct and reporting guidelines in rapid reviews published or posted online during 2013 and 2014.
methodsWe performed a comprehensive literature search for rapid reviews using multiple bibliographic databases (e.g. PubMed, MEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library) through December 31, 2014. Grey literature was searched thoroughly, and health technology assessment agencies were surveyed to identify additional rapid review products. Candidate reviews were assessed for inclusion using pre-specified eligibility criteria. Detailed data was collected from the included reviews on study and reporting characteristics and variables significant to rapid reviews (e.g. nomenclature, definition). We evaluated the quality of conduct and reporting of included rapid reviews using the A Measurement Tool to Assess Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) checklists. Compliance with each checklist item was examined, and the sum of adequately reported items was used to describe overall compliance. Rapid reviews were stratified to explore differences in compliance related to publication status. The association between compliance and time to completion or length of publication was explored through univariate regression.
resultsSixty-six rapid reviews were included. There were heterogeneous nomenclature, research questions and approaches to rapid reviews. Compliance with AMSTAR and PRISMA checklists was poor. Published rapid reviews were compliant with individual PRISMA items more often than unpublished reviews, but no difference was seen in AMSTAR item compliance overall. There was evidence of an association between length of publication and time to completion and the number of adequately reported PRISMA or AMSTAR items.
conclusionsTransparency and inadequate reporting are significant limitations of rapid reviews. Scientific editors, authors and producing agencies should ensure that the reporting of conduct and findings is accurate and complete. Further research may be warranted to explore reporting and conduct guidelines specific to rapid reviews and how these guidelines may be applied across the spectrum of rapid review approaches.
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.