Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39038926›Full record

ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2025

Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews.

Adrienne Stevens, Mona Hersi, Chantelle Garritty, Lisa Hartling, Beverley J Shea, Lesley A Stewart, Vivian Andrea Welch, Andrea C Tricco, Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 42 papers, 11 of them syntheses that pooled it.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
42citing papers in PubMed, 11 pooled it
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

42 citing papers in PubMed, 11 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.

  1. Pooled it
  2. Pooled it
  3. Pooled it
  4. Pooled it
  5. Pooled it
  6. Pooled it
  7. Pooled it
  8. Pooled it
  9. Pooled it
  10. Pooled it
  11. Pooled it
  12. Article
  13. Review
  14. Review
  15. Review
  16. Rapid Reviews: A Tutorial.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026
    Article
  17. Review
  18. Review
  19. Article
  20. Review
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Adrienne StevensCentre for Immunization Programs, Infectious Diseases & Vaccination Programs Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada adrienne.stevens@gmail.com.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-6257-4806
Mona HersiCentre for Immunization Programs, Infectious Diseases & Vaccination Programs Branch, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Chantelle GarrittySchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2207-9958
Lisa HartlingAlberta Research Centre for Health Evidence, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alberta, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-8341-3991
Beverley J SheaSchool of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa Faculty of Medicine, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.
Lesley A StewartCentre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, York, UK.
Vivian Andrea WelchBruyere Research Institute, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-5238-7097
Andrea C TriccoEpidemiology Division and Institute of Health Policy, Management, and Evaluation, University of Toronto Dalla Lana School of Public Health, Toronto, Ontario, Canada.
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Rapid reviews (RRs) are produced using abbreviated methods compared with standard systematic reviews (SR) to expedite the process for decision-making. This paper provides interim guidance to support the complete reporting of RRs. Recommendations emerged from a survey informed by empirical studies of RR reporting, in addition to collective experience. RR producers should use existing, robustly developed reporting guidelines as the foundation for writing RRs: notably Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses 2020 (PRISMA 2020; reporting for SRs), but also preferred reporting items for overviews of reviews (PRIOR) items (reporting for overviews of SRs) where SRs are included in the RR. In addition, a minimum set of six items were identified for RRs: three items pertaining to methods and three addressing publication ethics. Authors should be reporting what a priori-defined iterative methods were used during conduct, what distinguishes their RR from an SR, and knowledge user (eg, policymaker) involvement in the process. Explicitly reporting deviations from standard SR methods, including omitted steps, is important. The inclusion of publication ethics items reflects the predominance of non-journal published RRs: reporting an authorship byline and corresponding author, acknowledging other contributors, and reporting the use of expert peer review. As various formats may be used when packaging and presenting information to decision-makers, it is practical to think of complete reporting as across a set of explicitly linked documents made available in an open-access journal or repository that is barrier-free. We encourage feedback from the RR community of the use of these items as we look to develop a consolidated list in the development of PRISMA-RR.

Indexed as

Guidelines as TopicResearch DesignSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansPublishingEvidence-Based PracticeMethodsSystematic Reviews as Topic

Identifiers

PMID39038926
PMCPMC12013547

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.