ArticleSystematic reviews2016
User survey finds rapid evidence reviews increased uptake of evidence by Veterans Health Administration leadership to inform fast-paced health-system decision-making.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 19 papers, 5 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
19 citing papers in PubMed, 5 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2019Pooled it
- Why Do People Choose Emergency and Urgent Care Services? A Rapid Review Utilizing a Systematic Literature Search and Narrative Synthesis.Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Rapid Evidence Review of Bariatric Surgery in Super Obesity (BMI ≥ 50 kg/mJournal of general internal medicine · 2017Pooled it
- Knowledge user involvement is still uncommon in published rapid reviews-a meta-research cross-sectional study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- Access to dental services for children: a scoping review on the impact of COVID-19 and implications for future models of care.BMJ open · 2025Article
- An evidence-based care program in a local healthcare setting in Brazil: Experience and impact.Clinics (Sao Paulo, Brazil) · 2025Article
- Embedding rapid reviews in health policy and systems decision-making: Impacts and lessons learned from four low- and middle-income countries.Health research policy and systems · 2023Review
- Protecting Nursing Homes and Long-Term Care Facilities From COVID-19: A Rapid Review of International Evidence.Journal of the American Medical Directors Association · 2021Review
- Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- "Implementation Is so Difficult": Survey of National Learning Health System Decision-makers Identifies Need For Implementation Information in Evidence Reviews.Medical care · 2019Article
- Impact of a Hospital Evidence-Based Practice Center (EPC) on Nursing Policy and Practice.Worldviews on evidence-based nursing · 2019Article
- Web-Based Interventions to Improve Mental Health, General Caregiving Outcomes, and General Health for Informal Caregivers of Adults With Chronic Conditions Living in the Community: Rapid Evidence Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2017Review
- 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
- Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study.Systematic reviews · 2017Article
- 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
- 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
5 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundTo provide evidence synthesis for faster-paced healthcare decision-making, rapid reviews have emerged as a streamlined alternative to standard systematic reviews. In 2012, the Veterans Affairs Evidence-based Synthesis Program (VA ESP) added rapid reviews to support Veterans Health Administration (VHA) operational partners' more urgent decision-making needs. VHA operational partners play a substantial role in dissemination of ESP rapid reviews through a variety of routes, including posting on the VA ESP's public website ( http://www.hsrd. RESEARCH: va.gov/publications/esp/ ). As demand for rapid reviews rises, much progress has been made in characterizing methods and practices. However, evidence synthesis organizations still seek to better understand how and when rapid reviews are being used.
methodsThe VA ESP administered an online survey to rapid review operational partners. The survey assessed the nature of decision-making needs, overall perception of review content, resulting actions, and implementation timeframe. We use descriptive statistics and narrative methods to summarize findings.
resultsBetween October 2011 and April 2015, we completed 12 rapid reviews for 35 operational partners. Operational partners were primarily non-academic subject matter experts with VA operations' decision-making authority. The most common topic categories reviewed were policy or system (50 %) or process of care (42 %) initiatives. Median report completion time was 14.5 weeks. Survey response rate was 46 %, with at least one operational partner responding for 92 % of reports. Reviews served multiple purposes including policy directive or regulation (72 %), supporting program development and evaluation (55 %), identifying future research needs (45 %), and determining implementation strategy (45 %). Overall, operational partners' perception of report content was positive. A majority of rapid reviews were used immediately and informed actions ranking high on the Institute of Medicine's Degrees of Impact framework: 45.4 % effected change, 18.2 % inspired action, 18.2 % informed the field, 9.1 % received recognition, and 9.1 % spread a message.
conclusionsVA ESP rapid reviews have increased the VHA's uptake of evidence to inform time-sensitive system-level decision-making. Key areas of interest for future evaluation include assessing user perception of our streamlined methods and the quality of our efforts to inform users of these methods, as well as comparing the usability and impact of our rapid and standard systematic 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.