ArticleBMC medical research methodology2017
Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2017. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 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
24 citing papers in PubMed, 3 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Synthesizing evidence from the earliest studies to support decision-making: To what extent could the evidence be reliable?Research synthesis methods · 2022Pooled 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
- Characteristics of published mini and rapid health technology assessments reports: a cross-sectional analysis.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- How to formulate high-quality lessons learned: a rapid review.Global health action · 2025Review
- Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Addressing evidence needs during health crises in the province of Quebec (Canada): a proposed action plan for rapid evidence synthesis.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Accelerating evidence synthesis for safety assessment through ClinicalTrials.gov platform: a feasibility study.BMC medical research methodology · 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
- Article
- Perspectives on the production, and use, of rapid evidence in decision making during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative study.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Medical Oxygen as a Life-Saving Medicine: A rapid review of the oxygen landscape and innovative efforts in the World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Region in Response to COVID-19 and Beyond.Medical research archives · 2023Article
- Discrete choice experiment to determine preferences of decision-makers in healthcare for different formats of rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2021Article
- Evidence synthesis summary formats for clinical guideline development group members: a mixed-methods systematic review protocol.HRB open research · 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
- Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey.BMC medical research methodology · 2020Article
- Palliative Care Evidence Review Service (PaCERS): a knowledge transfer partnership.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Improving reference prioritisation with PICO recognition.BMC medical informatics and decision making · 2019Article
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
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecisionmakers and guideline developers demand rapid syntheses of the evidence when time sensitive evidence-informed decisions are required. A potential trade-off of such rapid reviews is that their results can have less reliability than results of systematic reviews that can lead to an increased risk of making incorrect decisions or recommendations. We sought to determine how much incremental uncertainty about the correctness of an answer guideline developers and health policy decisionmakers are willing to accept in exchange for a rapid evidence-synthesis.
methodsEmploying a purposive sample, we conducted an international web-based, anonymous survey of decisionmakers and guideline developers. Based on a clinical treatment, a public health, and a clinical prevention scenario, participants indicated the maximum risk of getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review that they would be willing to accept. We carefully reviewed data and performed descriptive statistical analyses.
resultsIn total, 325 (58.5%) of 556 participants completed our survey and were eligible for analysis. The median acceptable incremental risk for getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review across all three scenarios was 10.0% (interquartile range [IQR] 5.0-15.0). Acceptable risks were similar for the clinical treatment (n = 313, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0-15.0]) and the public health scenarios (n = 320, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0-15.0]) and lower for the clinical prevention scenario (n = 312, median 6.5% [IQR 5.0-10.5]).
conclusionsFindings suggest that decisionmakers are willing to accept some trade-off in validity in exchange for a rapid review. Nevertheless, they expect the validity of rapid reviews to come close to that of 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.