ArticleSystematic reviews2020
A QuESt for speed: rapid qualitative evidence syntheses as a response to the COVID-19 pandemic.
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 13 papers.
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
13 citing papers in PubMed.
- From Rapid Reviews to Rapid Living Evidence Synthesis: Lessons From COVID-19 Vaccine Effectiveness Reviews for Canadian Public Health Decision-Making.Campbell systematic reviews · 2026Article
- 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
- Factors shaping cleaning and disinfection practices during the COVID-19 pandemic: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Review
- Factors influencing uptake of diagnostic test interventions for SARS-CoV-2: A qualitative review.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Review
- Factors influencing mask use and physical distancing for COVID-19: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Review
- Health and care workers' perceptions of PPE and physical distancing for COVID-19: A qualitative evidence synthesis.Journal of public health in Africa · 2025Review
- Conducting two evidence syntheses in six weeks - experiences with and evaluation of a pilot project.BMC medical research methodology · 2024Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid qualitative evidence synthesis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Artificial intelligence in COVID-19 evidence syntheses was underutilized, but impactful: a methodological study.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Challenges of evidence synthesis during the 2020 COVID pandemic: a scoping review.Journal of clinical epidemiology · 2022Article
- Methods to support evidence-informed decision-making in the midst of COVID-19: creation and evolution of a rapid review service from the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools.BMC medical research methodology · 2021Review
- Review
- Critical Reflections on Conducting Qualitative Health Research During COVID-19: The Lived Experiences of a Cohort of Postgraduate Students in a South African University.International journal of qualitative methodsArticle
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
backgroundThe COVID-19 pandemic has created a sense of urgency in the research community in their bid to contribute to the evidence required for healthcare policy decisions. With such urgency, researchers experience methodological challenges to maintain the rigour and transparency of their work. With this in mind, we offer reflections on our recent experience of undertaking a rapid Cochrane qualitative evidence synthesis (QES).
methodsThis process paper, using a reflexive approach, describes a rapid QES prepared during, and in response to, the COVID-19 pandemic.
findingsThis paper reports the methodological decisions we made and the process we undertook. We place our decisions in the context of guidance offered in relation to rapid reviews and previously conducted QESs. We highlight some of the challenges we encountered in finding the balance between the time needed for thoughtfulness and comprehensiveness whilst providing a rapid response to an urgent request for evidence.
conclusionThe need for more guidance on rapid QES remains, but such guidance needs to be based on actual worked examples and case studies. This paper and the reflections offered may provide a useful framework for others to use and further develop.
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.