ArticleSystematic reviews2020
Combining abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening: three case studies of rapid reviews.
Article in Systematic reviews, 2020. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 12 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
12 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- The effectiveness of out-of-hours palliative care telephone advice lines: A rapid systematic review.Palliative medicine · 2024Pooled it
- Some Interventions to Shift Meta-Norms Are Effective for Changing Behaviors in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Rapid Systematic Review.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2022Pooled it
- Unequal harvests: AI-assisted evidence map of trends and gaps in global farmer health research along SDG 3 priorities.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid scoping, mapping and evidence and gap map ('Big Picture Reviews').BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- A bespoke rapid evidence review process engaging stakeholders for supporting evolving and time-sensitive policy and clinical decision-making: reflection and lessons learned from the Wales COVID-19 Evidence Centre 2021-2023.Health research policy and systems · 2025Review
- An exploration of available methods and tools to improve the efficiency of systematic review production: a scoping review.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: Guidance on literature search.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2023Article
- Article
- Rapid evidence synthesis to enable innovation and adoption in health and social care.Systematic reviews · 2022Article
- Efficient searching for NICE public health guidelines: Would using fewer sources still find the evidence?Research synthesis methods · 2022Article
- Literature searching methods or guidance and their application to public health topics: A narrative review.Health information and libraries journal · 2022Review
- Assessing the accuracy of machine-assisted abstract screening with DistillerAI: a user study.Systematic reviews · 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundDecision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies.
methodsWe used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews.
resultsFor the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21).
conclusionsWithin the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.
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.