ArticleBMC medical research methodology2020
Current methods for development of rapid reviews about diagnostic tests: an international survey.
Article in BMC medical research methodology, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 7 papers, 2 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
7 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 15 citations in OpenAlex.
- Limits in the search date for rapid reviews of diagnostic test accuracy studies.Research synthesis methods · 2023Pooled it
- Instruments to measure fear of COVID-19: a diagnostic systematic review.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Pooled it
- 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
- 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
- How to develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests according to experts: A qualitative exploration of researcher views.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- Meta-DiSc 2.0: a web application for meta-analysis of diagnostic test accuracy data.BMC medical research methodology · 2022Article
- Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
10 authors at 10 institutions in 5 countries.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundRapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient alternative to time-consuming systematic reviews-they can help meet the demand for accelerated evidence synthesis to inform decision-making in healthcare. The synthesis of diagnostic evidence has important methodological challenges. Here, we performed an international survey to identify the current practice of producing RRs for diagnostic tests.
methodsWe developed and administered an online survey inviting institutions that perform RRs of diagnostic tests from all over the world.
resultsAll participants (N = 25) reported the implementation of one or more methods to define the scope of the RR; however, only one strategy (defining a structured question) was used by ≥90% of participants. All participants used at least one methodological shortcut including the use of a previous review as a starting point (92%) and the use of limits on the search (96%). Parallelization and automation of review tasks were not extensively used (48 and 20%, respectively).
conclusionOur survey indicates a greater use of shortcuts and limits for conducting diagnostic test RRs versus the results of a recent scoping review analyzing published RRs. Several shortcuts are used without knowing how their implementation affects the results of the evidence synthesis in the setting of diagnostic test reviews. Thus, a structured evaluation of the challenges and implications of the adoption of these RR methods is warranted.
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.