Evidence map›Paper›PMID 40495249›Full record

ArticleSystematic reviews2025

Quality improvement needed for rapid review reports: a literature quality assessment based on Cochrane RR evidence-based methodology.

Donghua Yang, Yongjia Zhou, Xiao Tang, Tianyi Zhang, Yiyi Li, Jun Zhang, Jinhui Tian, Limei Yang

Abstract read
PubMed Full text at PMC Publisher
In one paragraph

Article in Systematic reviews, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–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

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
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

8 authors.

Donghua YangEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Germany.
Yongjia ZhouSchool of Nursing, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Xiao TangThe First College for Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Tianyi ZhangSocial Work Major at the School of Sociology, Beijing Institute of Technology, Beijing, 100000, China.
Yiyi LiSchool of Nursing, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Jun ZhangSchool of Nursing, Gansu University of Chinese Medicine, Lanzhou, 730000, China.
Jinhui TianEvidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou, 730000, Germany. tjh996@163.com.
Limei YangOutpatient Department, Gansu Provincial People's Hospital, Lanzhou, 730000, China. 13919171115@139.com.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

objectivesThe aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of rapid reviews (RRs) against the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methodological Guidance to identify areas for improvement.

methodsA literature quality assessment was conducted through systematic searches in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until February 28, 2023. An expert guided the search strategy, and the reporting quality of RRs was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize reporting quality, and subgroup analyses were performed to examine differences between groups. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square (χ

resultsAmong the 112 rapid reviews analyzed, fewer than 50% fully reported four key methodological components: topic refinement with stakeholders, eligibility criteria co-definition, risk of bias assessment tools, and protocol/software reporting. Reports published after 2021 demonstrated slightly higher overall quality compared to those published before 2020, with significant improvements in protocol development (Item 2: χ

conclusionsWhile RR quality is improving post-2021, critical gaps persist in stakeholder engagement and protocol transparency. Mandatory adoption of Cochrane guidelines-particularly protocol registration (Item23) and dual data extraction (Item17)-should be prioritized in journal submission policies.

Indexed as

Evidence-Based MedicineQuality ImprovementResearch DesignReview Literature as TopicSystematic Reviews as TopicHumansCochrane RR evidence-based methodologyEvidence-based medicineQuality assessmentRapid systematic reviewReporting compliance

Identifiers

PMID40495249
PMCPMC12150524

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY-NC-ND
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.