ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2024
Rapid Reviews Methods Series: Involving patient and public partners, healthcare providers and policymakers as knowledge users.
Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 25 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
25 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it, 45 citations in OpenAlex.
- Children and young people at the intersection of chronic illness and migration: a scoping review.BMC global and public health · 2025Pooled it
- A Rapid Systematic Review Assessing the Effectiveness of Interventions to Promote Self-Management in Workers with Long-Term Health Conditions and Disabilities.International journal of environmental research and public health · 2024Pooled it
- Rapid Reviews: A Tutorial.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- Development of the RIPPLES framework for patient and public involvement in rapid evidence syntheses.Research involvement and engagement · 2026Article
- Exploring patient navigation services in physical activity for people with chronic conditions in Canada: a rapid review protocol.BMJ open · 2026Article
- Complications and costs to the UK National Health Service due to outward medical tourism for elective surgery: a rapid review.BMJ open · 2026Review
- Methods of Engaging Interest-Holders in Healthcare Evidence Syntheses: A Scoping Review.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Review
- Rapid review of gender-affirming healthcare for children and adolescents: Evidence synthesis (2021-2025) and recommendations for South Africa.Southern African journal of HIV medicine · 2026Review
- Rapid Review of Gender-Affirming Healthcare for Children and Adolescents: Evidence Synthesis (2021-2025) and Recommendations for South Africa.Research square · 2025Article
- Knowledge user involvement is still uncommon in published rapid reviews-a meta-research cross-sectional study.Research synthesis methods · 2025Article
- A Rapid Review Contrasting the Evidence on Avian Influenza A(H5Nx) Clades 2.3.4.4b and 2.3.2.1c in Humans.Zoonoses and public health · 2025Review
- Mapping the Intersecting Contexts of Migration and Pediatric Pain over the Last Decade: A Rapid Scoping Review Protocol.Children (Basel, Switzerland) · 2025Article
- Methods used in early value assessments for nice: a scoping review.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2025Article
- Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- 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
- Rapid reviews methods series: considerations and recommendations for evidence synthesis in rapid reviews.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
- Optimising digital clinical consultations in maternity care: a realist review and implementation principles.BMJ open · 2024Review
- Needs led research: ensuring relevant research in two PhD projects within maternity care.Research involvement and engagement · 2024Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid qualitative evidence synthesis.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2024Article
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 at 6 institutions in 3 countries.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Rapid reviews (RRs) are a helpful evidence synthesis tool to support urgent and emergent decision-making in healthcare. RRs involve abbreviating systematic review methods and are conducted in a condensed timeline to meet the decision-making needs of organisations or groups that commission them. Knowledge users (KUs) are those individuals, typically patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy-makers, who are likely to use evidence from research, including RRs, to make informed decisions about health policies, programmes or practices. However, research suggests that KU involvement in RRs is often limited or overlooked, and few RRs include patients as KUs. Existing RR methods guidance advocates involving KUs but lacks detailed steps on how and when to do so. This paper discusses the importance of involving KUs in RRs, including patient and public involvement to ensure RRs are fit for purpose and relevant for decision-making. Opportunities to involve KUs in planning, conduct and knowledge translation of RRs are outlined. Further, this paper describes various modes of engaging KUs during the review lifecycle; key considerations researchers should be mindful of when involving distinct KU groups; and an exemplar case study demonstrating substantive involvement of patient partners and the public in developing RRs. Although involving KUs requires time, resources and expertise, researchers should strive to balance 'rapid' with meaningful KU involvement in RRs. This paper is the first in a series led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group to further guide general RR methods.
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.