ReviewBMC medical research methodology2021
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.
Review in BMC medical research methodology, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 23 papers, 6 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
23 citing papers in PubMed, 6 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Formal and informal science-policy interaction during public health emergencies of international concern: a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2026Pooled it
- Health outcomes following childhood or adolescent exposure to household food insecurity: a rapid systematic review.Public health nutrition · 2025Pooled it
- Toward compassionate communication: a rapid review on facilitating the dementia disclosure process.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Pooled it
- Organizational interventions to support and promote the mental health of healthcare workers during pandemics and epidemics: a systematic review.BMC health services research · 2025Pooled it
- Strategies to implement evidence-informed decision making at the organizational level: a rapid systematic review.BMC health services research · 2024Pooled it
- Mobilizing community-driven health promotion through community granting programs: a rapid systematic review.BMC public health · 2024Pooled it
- Mobilizing community-led health promotion: Evidence-informed co-development of the Live Well PEI community mobilization platform and integrated granting program.Canadian journal of public health = Revue canadienne de sante publique · 2026Article
- 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
- 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
- A data-driven approach to study temporal characteristics of COVID-19 infection and death Time Series for twelve countries across six continents.BMC medical research methodology · 2025Article
- Evidence-informed decision-making in public health in Canada: a qualitative exploration.JBI evidence implementation · 2025Article
- Evaluating the Effectiveness of mRNA-1273.815 Against COVID-19 Hospitalization Among Adults Aged ≥ 18 Years in the United States.Infectious diseases and therapy · 2025Article
- Exploring the perceptions and acceptability of an integrated lifestyle database for public health research and service commissioning: a qualitative study.Perspectives in public health · 2024Review
- Features of databases that supported searching for rapid evidence synthesis during COVID-19: implications for future public health emergencies.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
- Changes to Public Health Surveillance Methods Due to the COVID-19 Pandemic: Scoping Review.JMIR public health and surveillance · 2024Article
- Article
- Leveraging new methodologies for public health crisis management.Frontiers in public health · 2024Article
- Value-Based Healthcare: Is It Just Another Buzzword?Healthcare policy = Politiques de sante · 2023Article
- Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices.Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA · 2023Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundThe COVID-19 public health crisis has produced an immense and quickly evolving body of evidence. This research speed and volume, along with variability in quality, could overwhelm public health decision-makers striving to make timely decisions based on the best available evidence. In response to this challenge, the National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools developed a Rapid Evidence Service, building on internationally accepted rapid review methodologies, to address priority COVID-19 public health questions.
resultsEach week, the Rapid Evidence Service team receives requests from public health decision-makers, prioritizes questions received, and frames the prioritized topics into searchable questions. We develop and conduct a comprehensive search strategy and critically appraise all relevant evidence using validated tools. We synthesize the findings into a final report that includes key messages, with a rating of the certainty of the evidence using GRADE, as well as an overview of evidence and remaining knowledge gaps. Rapid reviews are typically completed and disseminated within two weeks. From May 2020 to July 21, 2021, we have answered more than 31 distinct questions and completed 32 updates as new evidence emerged. Reviews receive an average of 213 downloads per week, with some reaching over 7700. To date reviews have been accessed and cited around the world, and a more fulsome evaluation of impact on decision-making is planned.
conclusionsThe development, evolution, and lessons learned from our process, presented here, provides a real-world example of how review-level evidence can be made available - rapidly and rigorously, and in response to decision-makers' needs - during an unprecedented public health crisis.
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.