ArticleResearch synthesis methods2016
Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri-food public health.
Article in Research synthesis methods, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 20 papers, 2 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
20 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Comparison of Weightlifting, Traditional Resistance Training and Plyometrics on Strength, Power and Speed: A Systematic Review with Meta-Analysis.Sports medicine (Auckland, N.Z.) · 2022Pooled it
- Expediting citation screening using PICo-based title-only screening for identifying studies in scoping searches and rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2017Pooled it
- Evaluation of the replicability of systematic reviews with meta-analyses of the effects of health interventions.Research synthesis methods · 2026Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid scoping, mapping and evidence and gap map ('Big Picture Reviews').BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Effectiveness of Online Food-Safety Educational Programs: A Systematic Review, Random-Effects Meta-Analysis, and Thematic Synthesis.Foods (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Increasing the efficiency of study selection for systematic reviews using prioritization tools and a single-screening approach.Systematic reviews · 2023Article
- Efficient searching for NICE public health guidelines: Would using fewer sources still find the evidence?Research synthesis methods · 2022Article
- Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review.Health information and libraries journal · 2022Review
- Guidance for using artificial intelligence for title and abstract screening while conducting knowledge syntheses.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- Review
- The quality of systematic reviews and other synthesis in the time of COVID-19.Epidemiology and infection · 2021Article
- Evaluating the relationship between citation set size, team size and screening methods used in systematic reviews: a cross-sectional study.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Article
- An evaluation of DistillerSR's machine learning-based prioritization tool for title/abstract screening - impact on reviewer-relevant outcomes.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri-food public health.Research synthesis methods · 2016Article
- Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe rapid review is an approach to synthesizing research evidence when a shorter timeframe is required. The implications of what is lost in terms of rigour, increased bias and accuracy when conducting a rapid review have not yet been elucidated.
methodsWe assessed the potential implications of methodological shortcuts on the outcomes of three completed systematic reviews addressing agri-food public health topics. For each review, shortcuts were applied individually to assess the impact on the number of relevant studies included and whether omitted studies affected the direction, magnitude or precision of summary estimates from meta-analyses.
resultsIn most instances, the shortcuts resulted in at least one relevant study being omitted from the review. The omission of studies affected 39 of 143 possible meta-analyses, of which 14 were no longer possible because of insufficient studies (<2). When meta-analysis was possible, the omission of studies generally resulted in less precise pooled estimates (i.e. wider confidence intervals) that did not differ in direction from the original estimate.
conclusionsThe three case studies demonstrated the risk of missing relevant literature and its impact on summary estimates when methodological shortcuts are applied in rapid reviews. © 2016 The Authors. Research Synthesis Methods Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.
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.