Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27793186›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2016

Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to play a leading role in guiding the production of informed high-quality, timely research evidence syntheses.

Chantelle Garritty, Adrienne Stevens, Gerald Gartlehner, Valerie King, Chris Kamel, Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

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.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
19citing papers in PubMed, 3 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

19 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022
    Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. 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 · 2018
    Pooled it
  4. Article
  5. Article
  6. The Contribution of Environmental Science to Mental Health Research: A Scoping Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2023
    Article
  7. Rapid literature review: definition and methodology.Journal of market access & health policy · 2023
    Review
  8. Article
  9. Article
  10. Review
  11. Article
  12. Article
  13. Article
  14. Article
  15. Review
  16. Article
  17. Article
  18. Article
  19. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Chantelle GarrittyOttawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada. cgarritty@ohri.ca.
Adrienne StevensOttawa Methods Centre, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8L6, Canada.
Gerald GartlehnerCochrane Austria, Danube University, Krems, Dr. Karl Dorrek Strasse 30, 3500, Krems, Austria.
Valerie KingThe Center for Evidence-based Policy, Oregon Health & Science University, 3030 SW Moody Avenue, Portland, OR, 97201, USA.
Chris KamelCanadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health (CADTH), 600-865 Carling Ave., Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5S8, Canada.
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

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

Decision MakingEvidence-Based MedicineAbstracting and IndexingHumansResearch DesignResearch ReportTime FactorsEvidence synthesisHealthcare decisionsKnowledge synthesisRapid reviews

Identifiers

PMID27793186
PMCPMC5084365

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.