ArticleBMC medical research methodology2018
Rapid response in health technology assessment: a Delphi study for a Brazilian guideline.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 15 papers, 1 of them a synthesis 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
15 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- Paper 2: Performing rapid reviews.Systematic reviews · 2022Pooled it
- Development and Validation of a Clinical Script for Medicine Dispensing.Journal of evaluation in clinical practice · 2026Article
- Characteristics of published mini and rapid health technology assessments reports: a cross-sectional analysis.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Validation of a method for synthesizing public consultations to inform decision-making in health technology assessment (HTA) in Brazil: a Delphi consensus.BMC health services research · 2025Article
- Evidence-informed policy for monitoring SDG 3 in the Legal Amazon region: A rapid review.Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2025Review
- Article
- Integrative and Complementary Health Practices for Chronic Pain: summary of clinical guideline recommendations.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Review
- Integrative and complementary healthcare practices for hypertension: a summary of recommended clinical guidelines.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Review
- Agenda for COVID-19 and long COVID research priorities in Brazil: results of wide consultation and Delphi consensus, 2022-2023.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2025Article
- Participating in the digital world: a consensus statement on digital social contact for people with disabilities living in sheltered care facility homes.International journal of developmental disabilities · 2024Article
- [Evidence for Health Promotion in Brazil: report on a rapid response serviceEvidencia para la promoción de la salud en Brasil: informe sobre un servicio de respuesta rápida].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2024Article
- Competency profiles for evidence-informed policy-making (EIPM): a rapid review.Health research policy and systems · 2023Review
- [Telehealth, food consumption, and eating behavior in adults: a rapid review of systematic reviewsTelesalud, consumo de alimentos y comportamiento alimentario de la población adulta: examen rápido de revisiones sistemáticas].Revista panamericana de salud publica = Pan American journal of public health · 2023Article
- Systematic reviews and other types of synthesis: commentary on the methodological series published in Epidemiology and Health Services Epidemiologia e Serviços de Saúde.Epidemiologia e servicos de saude : revista do Sistema Unico de Saude do Brasil · 2022Article
- What adults with ADHD want to know: A Delphi consensus study on the psychoeducational needs of experts by experience.Health expectations : an international journal of public participation in health care and health policy · 2022Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors at 3 institutions in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundRapid response in health technology assessment is a synthesis of the best available evidence prepared in a timely manner to meet specific demands. We build a consensus among Brazilian specialists in health technology assessment to propose guidelines for the development of rapid response.
methodsBased on a systematic review that proposed eight methodological steps to conduct rapid response, we applied a modified Delphi technique (without open questions in the first round) to reach consensus among Brazilian experts in health technology assessment. Twenty participants were invited to judge the feasibility of each methodological step in a five-point Likert scale. Consensus was reached if the step had 70% positive approval or interquartile range ≤ 1.
resultsThe achievement of consensus was reached in the second round. Between the first and the second round, we scrutinized all points reported by the experts. The Delphi panel reached consensus of eight steps: definition of the structured question of rapid response (with a restricted scope); definition of the eligibility criteria for study types (preferably systematic reviews); search strategy (language and data limits) and sources of information (minimum two); selection of studies (independently by two responders); critical appraisal of the included studies and the risk of bias for the outcomes of interest; data extraction from the included articles; summary of evidence; and preparation of the report.
conclusionsThe guidelines for rapid response in health technology assessment may help governments to make better decisions in a short period of time (35 days). The adoption of methodological processes should improve both the quality and consistency of health technology assessments of rapid decisions in the Brazilian setting.
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.