ArticleSystematic reviews2016
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses.
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, 3 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, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- COVID-19 transmission during swimming-related activities: a rapid systematic review.BMC infectious diseases · 2021Pooled 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
- Methodology for a Series of Rapid Reviews on Virtual Care in Rehabilitation, Reviewing Its Advantages and Challenges to Inform Best Practices.Clinics and practice · 2024Article
- Production and use of rapid responses during the COVID-19 pandemic in Quebec (Canada): perspectives from evidence synthesis producers and decision makers.Health research policy and systems · 2024Article
- The Contribution of Environmental Science to Mental Health Research: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023Article
- Rapid literature review: definition and methodology.Journal of market access & health policy · 2023Review
- Working hours, sleep, and fatigue in the public safety sector: A scoping review of the research.American journal of industrial medicine · 2022Article
- Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2021Article
- Virtual Reality Representations of Nature to Improve Well-Being amongst Older Adults: a Rapid Review.Journal of technology in behavioral science · 2021Review
- A QuESt for speed: rapid qualitative evidence syntheses as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.Systematic reviews · 2020Article
- Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study.PloS one · 2020Article
- Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2019Article
- Social Media Use in Interventions for Diabetes: Rapid Evidence-Based Review.Journal of medical Internet research · 2018Review
- Rapid response in health technology assessment: a Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline.BMC medical research methodology · 2018Article
- Restructuring the built environment to change adult health behaviors: a scoping review integrated with behavior change frameworks.Cities & health · 2018Article
- Rapid Review and Synthesis of the Palliative Care Matters Scientific Evidence.Journal of palliative medicine · 2018Article
- Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey.BMC medical research methodology · 2017Article
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
backgroundPolicymakers and healthcare stakeholders are increasingly seeking evidence to inform the policymaking process, and often use existing or commissioned systematic reviews to inform decisions. However, the methodologies that make systematic reviews authoritative take time, typically 1 to 2 years to complete. Outside the traditional SR timeline, "rapid reviews" have emerged as an efficient tool to get evidence to decision-makers more quickly. However, the use of rapid reviews does present challenges. To date, there has been limited published empirical information about this approach to compiling evidence. Thus, it remains a poorly understood and ill-defined set of diverse methodologies with various labels. In recent years, the need to further explore rapid review methods, characteristics, and their use has been recognized by a growing network of healthcare researchers, policymakers, and organizations, several with ties to Cochrane, which is recognized as representing an international gold standard for high-quality, systematic reviews. PURPOSE: In this commentary, we introduce the newly established Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group developed to play a leading role in guiding the production of rapid reviews given they are increasingly employed as a research synthesis tool to support timely evidence-informed decision-making. We discuss how the group was formed and outline the group's structure and remit. We also discuss the need to establish a more robust evidence base for rapid reviews in the published literature, and the importance of promoting registration of rapid review protocols in an effort to promote efficiency and transparency in research.
conclusionAs with standard systematic reviews, the core principles of evidence-based synthesis should apply to rapid reviews in order to minimize bias to the extent possible. The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group will serve to establish a network of rapid review stakeholders and provide a forum for discussion and training. By facilitating exchange, the group will strive to conduct research to advance the methods of 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.