ReviewResearch synthesis methods2022
Lessons learnt: Undertaking rapid reviews on public health and social measures during a global pandemic.
Review in Research synthesis methods, 2022. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 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
9 citing papers in PubMed.
- Conducting evidence synthesis and developing evidence-based advice in public health and beyond: A scoping review and map of methods guidance.Research synthesis methods · 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
- A living critical interpretive synthesis to yield a framework on the production and dissemination of living evidence syntheses for decision-making.Implementation science : IS · 2024Review
- Article
- Towards the Future of Public Health: Roadmapping Trends and Scenarios in the Post-COVID Healthcare Era.Healthcare (Basel, Switzerland) · 2023Article
- Embedding rapid reviews in health policy and systems decision-making: Impacts and lessons learned from four low- and middle-income countries.Health research policy and systems · 2023Review
- Review
- How to develop rapid reviews of diagnostic tests according to experts: A qualitative exploration of researcher views.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2023Article
- Lessons learnt: Undertaking rapid reviews on public health and social measures during a global pandemic.Research synthesis methods · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Public health and social measures (PHSM) have been central to the COVID-19 response. Consequently, there has been much pressure on decision-makers to make evidence-informed decisions and on researchers to synthesize the evidence regarding these measures. This article describes our experiences, responses and lessons learnt regarding key challenges when planning and conducting rapid reviews of PHSM during the COVID-19 pandemic. Stakeholder consultations and scoping reviews to obtain an overview of the evidence inform the scope of reviews that are policy-relevant and feasible. Multiple complementary reviews serve to examine the benefits and harms of PHSM across different populations and contexts. Conceiving reviews of effectiveness as adaptable living reviews helps to respond to evolving evidence needs and an expanding evidence base. An appropriately skilled review team and good planning, coordination and communication ensures smooth and rigorous processes and efficient use of resources. Scientific rigor, the practical implications of PHSM-related complexity and likely time savings should be carefully weighed in deciding on methodological shortcuts. Making the best possible use of modeling studies represents a particular challenge, and methods should be carefully chosen, piloted and implemented. Our experience raises questions regarding the nature of rapid reviews and regarding how different types of evidence should be considered in making decisions about PHSM during a global pandemic. We highlight the need for readily available protocols for conducting studies on the effectiveness, unintended consequences and implementation of PHSM in a timely manner, as well as the need for rapid review standards tailored to "rapid" versus "emergency" mode reviewing.
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.