SynthesisHealth research policy and systems2016
What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review.
Synthesis in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 175 papers, 28 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
175 citing papers in PubMed, 28 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Gender-responsive and -transformative interventions in HIV, TB and malaria programmes: a review of evidence.BMC public health · 2026Pooled it
- Anti-inflammatory effect of chamomile from randomized clinical trials: a systematic review and meta-analyses.Pharmaceutical biology · 2025Pooled it
- Commonality of 25 component themes of integrated care for children: rapid review of 170 models.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Hormone therapy and cancer risks in transgender people: a systematic review.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Pooled it
- Signs and symptoms of serious illness in infants aged up to 6 months: rapid review of clinical guidelines.BMJ paediatrics open · 2024Pooled it
- Assessment of global antimicrobial resistance campaigns conducted to improve public awareness and antimicrobial use behaviours: a rapid systematic review.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Factors associated with anxiety and fear of falling in older adults: A rapid systematic review of reviews.PloS one · 2024Pooled it
- [Do we need to treat asymptomatic bacteriuria in immunocompromised patients? : A rapid review].Urologie (Heidelberg, Germany) · 2023Pooled it
- Pooled it
- Pooled it
- A Rapid Systematic Review on the Experiences of Cancer Survivors Residing in Rural Areas during the COVID-19 Pandemic.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Rapid systematic review on developing web-based interventions to support people affected by cancer.BMJ open · 2022Pooled it
- Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- The impact of COVID-19 pandemic on family caregivers' mental health: a rapid systematic review of the current evidence.Acta bio-medica : Atenei Parmensis · 2022Pooled it
- An Evaluation of Cardiac Health in the Spontaneously Hypertensive Rat Colony: Implications of Evolutionary Driven Increases in Concentric Hypertrophy.American journal of hypertension · 2022Pooled it
- Interventions to increase personal protective behaviours to limit the spread of respiratory viruses: A rapid evidence review and meta-analysis.British journal of health psychology · 2022Pooled it
- The community nurse in Australia. Who are they? A rapid systematic review.Journal of nursing management · 2022Pooled it
- Barriers to COVID-19 Health Products in Low-and Middle-Income Countries During the COVID-19 Pandemic: A Rapid Systematic Review and Evidence Synthesis.Frontiers in public health · 2022Pooled it
- A translational triage research development tool: standardizing prehospital triage decision-making systems in mass casualty incidents.Scandinavian journal of trauma, resuscitation and emergency medicine · 2021Pooled it
- Impact of hospital lockdown secondary to COVID-19 and past pandemics on surgical practice: A living rapid systematic review.American journal of surgery · 2021Pooled it
115 more citing papers are in PubMed but not listed here.
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
backgroundRapid reviews have the potential to overcome a key barrier to the use of research evidence in decision making, namely that of the lack of timely and relevant research. This rapid review of systematic reviews and primary studies sought to answer the question: What are the best methodologies to enable a rapid review of research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice?
methodsThis rapid review utilised systematic review methods and was conducted according to a pre-defined protocol including clear inclusion criteria (PROSPERO registration: CRD42015015998). A comprehensive search strategy was used, including published and grey literature, written in English, French, Portuguese or Spanish, from 2004 onwards. Eleven databases and two websites were searched. Two review authors independently applied the eligibility criteria. Data extraction was done by one reviewer and checked by a second. The methodological quality of included studies was assessed independently by two reviewers. A narrative summary of the results is presented.
resultsFive systematic reviews and one randomised controlled trial (RCT) that investigated methodologies for rapid reviews met the inclusion criteria. None of the systematic reviews were of sufficient quality to allow firm conclusions to be made. Thus, the findings need to be treated with caution. There is no agreed definition of rapid reviews in the literature and no agreed methodology for conducting rapid reviews. While a wide range of 'shortcuts' are used to make rapid reviews faster than a full systematic review, the included studies found little empirical evidence of their impact on the conclusions of either rapid or systematic reviews. There is some evidence from the included RCT (that had a low risk of bias) that rapid reviews may improve clarity and accessibility of research evidence for decision makers.
conclusionsGreater care needs to be taken in improving the transparency of the methods used in rapid review products. There is no evidence available to suggest that rapid reviews should not be done or that they are misleading in any way. We offer an improved definition of rapid reviews to guide future research as well as clearer guidance for policy and practice.
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.