The DOI matches its Crossref record; 36 of the 37 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 36 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews
Open accessAbstract
OBJECTIVES: To develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority. STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: Interim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided. RESULTS: Based on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for systematic reviews is highlighted. CONCLUSION: The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.
Overview
AI snapshot
Written from the paper’s full text.
TL;DR
The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group presents interim, evidence-informed guidance with 26 recommendations for conducting rapid reviews, based on scoping reviews, primary methods studies, and a Cochrane stakeholder survey. It defines rapid reviews as accelerated knowledge synthesis and emphasizes stakeholder involvement, flexibility, and transparency.
Key findings
- The survey had a 53% response rate (n = 63; completed 46%, n = 53), with respondents from 19 of 20 Cochrane entities; 62% (n = 39) had previously participated in a rapid review, and only 1 of 59 respondents indicated Cochrane should not undertake rapid reviews.
- The label “Cochrane RR” was endorsed by 43/57 respondents (75%), and 26 rapid review methods recommendations were included where there was high or moderate agreement or where an item ranked first.
- Agreement thresholds were high ≥70%, moderate ≥50–69%, and low <50%; if only low-level agreement was reached, the most endorsed response was still recommended so each stage had a recommendation.
- The recommended definition is: “A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting various methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner.”
Methods
- Guidance was informed by two scoping reviews (one of 216 rapid reviews and 90 methods articles; one identifying 14 empirical studies evaluating rapid review methods), two primary methods studies (English-language restriction; single- vs dual-reviewer screening via Cochrane Crowd), and a survey.
- The survey was sent in September 2019 to 119 individuals from 20 Cochrane entities; results were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and recommendations were mapped to Cochrane MECIR guidance where possible.
- Final recommendations were agreed through discussion among RRMG convenors; the authors state they did not follow a formal recommendation process but used a deliberate and systematic approach.
Limitations
- Stated: the survey response rate was somewhat lower than typical Internet surveys (58%); not all rapid review stages had corresponding evidence; best practice is limited by lack of currently available evidence for some shortcuts; and the interim guidance will need updating as abbreviated methods are evaluated.
- Stated: the guidance was developed within Cochrane and focused on rapid reviews of interventions; the authors note future adaptation is needed for other review types (e.g., diagnostic test accuracy or screening), and some recommendations may not apply across all rapid reviews.
- Evident: no formal ethics approval was sought because the survey was internal, and no formal recommendation process was used; some recommendations therefore rest on expert/survey agreement where empirical evidence was absent.
Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
23 Not checked yet · 18 Own interpretation · 13 Own result · 6 Own method · 3 No basis given
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“One reviewer to include and two reviewersto exclude at title and abstract screening for Cochrane RRs was the highest ranked among survey respondents.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“We also undertook a second scoping review that identified 14 empirical studies that evaluated RR methods, which we mapped to stages of review conduct [23].”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Methods > Underlying evidence and primary studies for RR defining features and methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [23] Hamel, 2020, Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review, J Clin Epidemiol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“we included twenty-six items that attained a moderate to a high level of agreement or that ranked first as an approach across the stages of conduct”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Results of the survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“only one of 59 respondents indicated Cochrane should not undertake RRs”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Results of the survey
plainn = 59- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The label Cochrane RR was strongly endorsed as a sufficient term (43/57; 75%) for use within Cochrane.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Results of the survey
boostedn = 57- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this approach ranked as least acceptable among Cochrane survey respondents.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“proposed a definition of RR that covers the most common themes that were identified in approximately 50% or more of the 216 RRs and 90 methods articles included [22].”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Methods > Underlying evidence and primary studies for RR defining features and methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [22] Hamel, 2020, Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews, J Clin Epidemiol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recommended approach for data extraction for RRs was the highest ranked among survey respondents”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Rests on an assumption: The preferences of survey respondents are a valid basis for methodological recommendations for rapid reviews.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“given the onset of coronavirus, decision makers have an urgent need for evidence that cannot be met using traditional SR methods.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Introduction > Context for rapid reviews
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“a standard or consensus definition does not exist.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Introduction > Context for rapid reviews
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Probably not a substantial claim. 32
- It may state two separate claims as one. 26
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The overall survey response rate was 53% (n = 63) with a completed response rate of 46% (n = 53).”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Results of the survey
plainn = 63- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Further, 62% (n = 39) had previously participated in an RR in various capacities”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Results of the survey
plainn = 39- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Of those that responded, a large proportion were either extremely/very (38%; n = 24) or somewhat (38%; n = 24) familiar with RRs.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Results of the survey
plainn = 24- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Respondents were from 19 of 20 entities approached.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Results of the survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Dual, independent screening of full-text articles ranked second as most acceptable.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recommended approach that ranked highest in the survey for RRs is less stringent than for Cochrane Reviews, but still involves one reviewer to do RoB with another reviewer to verify all judgments.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
- Rests on an assumption: The preferences of survey respondents are a valid basis for methodological recommendations for rapid reviews.
A result the paper reports from its own data — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“although survey respondents agreed Cochrane RRs should take no longer than 6 months”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient tool to get evidence to decision makers more quickly and are now considered part of the knowledge synthesis family [5].”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Introduction > Context for rapid reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [5] Moher, 2015, All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more, Syst Rev source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“the methodological rigor and process that makes SR evidence trustworthy often take one to 2 years to complete [[1], [2], [3], [4]] and limit their utility to meet the time-sensitive needs of stakeholders.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Introduction > Context for rapid reviews
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] Ganann, 2010, Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews, Implement Sci source
- Not checked yetcites [2] Khangura, 2012, Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach, Syst Rev source
- Not checked yetcites [3] Bero, 2012, Measuring the performance of the Cochrane library, Cochrane Database Syst Rev
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Evidence from one study suggests that knowledge brokering of proposals improved the perceived clarity of information provided to policymakers; reasons for commissioning the RR; and context for the questions, scope, methods, and report conclusions. Further, it improved the confidence of reviewers to meet the policymakers’ needs [27].”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] Moore, 2017, Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study, Syst Rev source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, although setting a date restriction is a pragmatic shortcut, this needs to be carefully considered for each topic.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“this interim guidance is based on what is currently known about RR methods and is being actively used in the development of early Cochrane RR products to address pressing clinical questions posed by international stakeholders in response to COVID-19 [35,36]”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [35] Nussbaumer-Streit, 2020, Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review, Cochrane Database Syst Rev
- Not checked yetcites [36] Paludan-Müller, 2020, Hand cleaning with ash for reducing the spread of viral and bacterial infections: a rapid review, Cochrane Database Syst Rev
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Having specific guidance will improve the utility and robustness of the results of Cochrane RRs”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The various limits to eligibility criteria are important to ensure RRs are manageable and timely.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“a recently published study that found the experience of data abstractors may matter less than initially thought and that adjudication is what leads to reduced errors [33]”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [33] Jian-Yu, 2020, Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews, Res Synth Methods
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“If the findings of an RR are to influence practice and policy, then outcome selection needs to be relevant to clinicians, policymakers, and patients.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
In the paper
“an extension to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for RRs is underway [18]”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [18] Stevens, 2018
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What sets our RR methods apart from other RR guidance is that it was developed within the context of Cochrane and focuses on RRs of interventions.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Interim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Abstract > Study Design and Setting
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“this guidance will also be applicable for future circumstances when decisions need to be made in a period of weeks to a few months”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this RR guidance was developed for Cochrane, the recommended methods are widely applicable for anyone conducting a rapid review.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Abstract > Conclusion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“recommendations were informed by a review of related RR methods studies across stages of conduct, two metaepidemiological studies conducted by the RRMG, through gathering the opinions and preferences from a wider group of researchers involved in the Cochrane community using survey methods, and the involvement of RR methodology experts.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“It fully adheres to Cochrane guidance and may be used if time and resources are available.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Emphasizing locating and summarizing evidence first from relevant, higher quality study designs will assist in streamlining available evidence.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“skilled extractors will be key to minimizing error rates for RRs”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“Cochrane RRs are recommended to address only urgent and high priority questions explicitly requested by decision makers, whereas other guides do not necessarily limit RR conduct to urgent questions only [20]”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [20] Dobbins, 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“For example, if RRs are related to COVID-19, or involve complementary and alternative medicine therapies, it is expected that studies would emerge in languages other than English.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
hedgedcorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In this study, most effect size changes were small but moderate, and significant changes were relatively common.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Marshall, 2019, Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study, J Clin Epidemiol source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Findings suggest that exclusion of non-English publications from SRs on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and can be a viable methodological shortcut for RRs [24].”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [24] Nussbaumer-Streit, 2020, Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study, J Clin Epidemiol source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the recommended methods are widely applicable for anyone conducting an RR”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the RRMG elected to adopt recommendations based on survey items for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement using the following as a guide: high-level (endorsed by ≥ 70% of respondents); moderate-level (endorsed by ≥50–69% of respondents); and low-level (endorsed by <50% of respondents).”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Methods > Deriving interim guidance for Cochrane rapid review methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“extracting study characteristics for which Cochrane allows for both dual and single extraction although in duplicate is highly desired and ii) extracting outcomes data, which Cochrane makes mandatory to extract in duplicate.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“to our knowledge, this is the first that provides clear, actionable recommendations and minimum standards based on up to date empirical evidence evaluating RR methods.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Introduction > Objectives
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Garritty, 2017, Developing WHO rapid advice guidelines in the setting of a public health emergency, J Clin Epidemiol source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Dobbins, 2017
- Not checked yetcites [21] Tricco, 2017
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although we did not follow a formal recommendation process, we used a deliberate and systematic approach to develop this interim guidance as per Web Appendix 3.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Methods > Deriving interim guidance for Cochrane rapid review methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Other RR guides focus on health policy and systems research, public health, or WHO guideline development in the face of public health emergencies [16,20,21].”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [16] Garritty, 2017, Developing WHO rapid advice guidelines in the setting of a public health emergency, J Clin Epidemiol source
- Not checked yetcites [20] Dobbins, 2017
- Not checked yetcites [21] Tricco, 2017
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given RRs serve an important purpose for certain stakeholders, ongoing interest in them is expected to grow.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Rests on an assumption: Rapid reviews serve an important purpose for certain stakeholders.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although exploring the full range of outcomes at the outset of the project is good practice, the list of outcomes needs to be carefully condensed given time and resource limitations of RRs.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In spite of the survey response rate being somewhat lower than those typically obtained from Internet surveys (58%) [26], it did include participation from representatives across 19 of 20 Cochrane groups approached to take part in this survey.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Dillman, 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Standards for conducting a meta-analysis for an SR equally apply to an RR.”
- Also stated in: § Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations · plain
“The standards for conducting a meta-analysis for an SR equally apply to an RR”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations · plain
In the paper
“evidence suggests that limiting the search to a set number of years may lead to a loss of studies and a change in the results of meta-analyses [28].”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [28] Marshall, 2019, Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study, J Clin Epidemiol source
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Screening reference lists can detect missed studies when searching electronic databases or eligible studies excluded in error during screening.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“the selection of databases to search will depend on the topic under review and access to them.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Given this was an internal organizational survey, formal ethics approval was not sought but informed consent was required to participate.”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Methods > Cochrane rapid review methods options survey
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The recommendation (i.e., one reviewer to include and two reviewers to exclude) represents a methodological shortcut for RRs, when compared with full-text screening for Cochrane Reviews (i.e., two independent reviewers using full text to determine if the study meets eligibility criteria).”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Results > Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“was developed following recommended survey methods [26].”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Methods > Cochrane rapid review methods options survey
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] Dillman, 2007
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper relies on this without support.
The preferences of survey respondents are a valid basis for methodological recommendations for rapid reviews.
“The recommended approach for data extraction for RRs was the highest ranked among survey respondents”
The paper relies on this without support.
Rapid reviews serve an important purpose for certain stakeholders.
“Given RRs serve an important purpose for certain stakeholders, ongoing interest in them is expected to grow.”
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
The source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“A rapid review adheres to the essential principles of systematic reviews, including scientific rigor, transparency, and reproducibility [12,13].”
From Mental Health of Children and Adolescents Amidst COVID-19 and Past Pandemics: A Rapid Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as [12]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe source backs part of the claim, not all of it — or backs it for a different population, condition or comparison.
In the citing paper
“Following Cochrane recommendations, the screening process was piloted with a random sample of studies for both abstract and full text57.”
From Use of automated conversational agents in improving young population mental health: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [57]
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredThe cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“We followed guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Moher et al., 2009) and the guidance of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (Garritty et al., 2021).”
From The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as Garritty et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“In line with the recommendations of Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group, one reviewer (T.Z.) extracted narrative data from studies, which a second reviewer (S.K.) checked for correctness and completeness (Garritty et al., 2021).”
From The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as Garritty et al., 2021
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“the review itself was guided by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods recommendations [25] and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews; Multimedia Appendix 1 [26])”
From Experiences of Using Digital Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Rapid Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [25]
In the citing paper
“The original guidance offered 26 recommendations, with accompanying rationales on the steps and considerations for accelerating each part of the review process.”
From Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Discussion
“two metaepidemiological studies conducted by the RRMG”
§ Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews > Methods > Underlying evidence and primary studies for RR defining features and methods
“one that assessed the impact of limiting inclusion criteria solely to English language publications [24] and one that assessed the accuracy of single-reviewer screening vs. dual-reviewer screening as part of an online parallel group randomized controlled trial using the Cochrane Crowd platform [25]”
Citations
Cites
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
Mail and internet surveys : the tailored design method
Dillman, D. A. (2007) · Cited by 9,587
PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 · Cited by 5,700 · cited 1×
“Although Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies [30] is not part of current MECIR guidance, we recommend its use for Cochrane RRs. Evidence suggests that the absence of search strategy peer review often results in many missed studies not retrieved.”
Mail and Internet Surveys: The Tailored Design Method
Chisnall, P. M. (2007) · Journal of Advertising Research · doi:10.2501/s0021849907070237 · Cited by 3,463
Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach
Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 · Cited by 1,232
A scoping review of rapid review methods
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 · Cited by 1,146
Nußbaumer-Streit, B., Mayr, V., Dobrescu, A. I., Chapman, A. L., Persad, E., Klerings, I., Wagner, G., Siebert, U., Christof, C., Zachariah, C., et al. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013574 · Cited by 987
Self-citationExpediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews
Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-56 · Cited by 752
Waffenschmidt, S., Knelangen, M., Sieben, W., Bühn, S., & Pieper, D. (2019) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-019-0782-0 · Cited by 626
Nußbaumer-Streit, B., Mayr, V., Dobrescu, A. I., Chapman, A. L., Persad, E., Klerings, I., Wagner, G., Siebert, U., Ledinger, D., Zachariah, C., et al. (2020) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd013574.pub2 · Cited by 548
Self-citation
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Items 401–500 of 1,002
Kunonga, P., Johnson, E. E., Din, U., Westhead, E., Dewhurst, F., & Hanratty, B. (2025) · BMC Palliative Care · doi:10.1186/s12904-025-01742-1 · Cited by 10
Peterson, J., Graham, C., Johnstone, E., Mahaveer, A., & Smith, D. M. (2025) · Frontiers in Pediatrics · doi:10.3389/fped.2025.1553040 · Cited by 10
Consensus Guideline for the Management of Peritoneal Mesothelioma
Brown, L. M., Wilkins, S. G., Bansal, V. V., Su, D. G., Gómez-Mayorga, J. L., Turaga, K. K., Gunderson, C. G., Lee, B., Nash, G. M., Hays, J. L., et al. (2025) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-025-17358-x · Cited by 10
Nurses’ learning about foot care for patients with diabetes: A rapid review
Björk, K., Andersson, S. K., Tang, U. H., & Eriksson, H. (2025) · Nurse Education in Practice · doi:10.1016/j.nepr.2025.104560 · Cited by 10
Dittborn, M., Micolich, C., Rojas, D., & Salas, S. P. (2022) · AJOB Empirical Bioethics · doi:10.1080/23294515.2022.2063996 · Cited by 10
Pre-surgical Nasal Decolonization of Staphylococcus aureus: A Health Technology Assessment.
(2022) · PubMed Central · Cited by 10
The Role of Kiwifruit in Supporting Psychological Well-Being: A Rapid Review of the Literature
Billows, M., Kakoschke, N., & Zajac, I. T. (2022) · Nutrients · doi:10.3390/nu14214657 · Cited by 11
Engaging youth at risk of violence in services: Messages from research
Axford, N., Tredinnick‐Rowe, J., Rybczynska‐Bunt, S., Burns, L., Green, F., & Thompson, T. (2022) · Children and Youth Services Review · doi:10.1016/j.childyouth.2022.106713 · Cited by 10
Morrison, K., Hughes, T., & Doi, L. (2022) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076221123711 · Cited by 11
Affengruber, L., Wagner, G., Dobrescu, A. I., Toromanova, A., Chapman, A. L., Persad, E., Klerings, I., & Gartlehner, G. (2023) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m22-1900 · Cited by 10
Self-citationA governance framework for the design and evaluation of tree planting schemes
Yitbarek, T. W., Wilson, J. R., & Dehnen‐Schmutz, K. (2023) · Forest Policy and Economics · doi:10.1016/j.forpol.2023.102980 · Cited by 11
Maraolo, A. E., & Ong, D. S. Y. (2023) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2023.05.036 · Cited by 10
Alatar, W., Knott, F. J., & Loucas, T. (2023) · Review Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders · doi:10.1007/s40489-023-00393-3 · Cited by 10
Rapid review of factors influencing dietary behaviors in Fiji
Boxer, B., Trübswasser, U., Lesi, V., Naika, A., Dahal, P., Sagan, S., Joshi, K., Irache, A., Singh, P., Nand, D., et al. (2023) · Frontiers in Nutrition · doi:10.3389/fnut.2023.1164855 · Cited by 10
Communities of practice in residential aged care: A rapid review
Read, M., Peters, S., Bennett, N. J., Francis, J., Fetherstonhaugh, D., Lim, W. K., & Tropea, J. (2023) · International Journal of Older People Nursing · doi:10.1111/opn.12563 · Cited by 10
Krantz, L. B., Stanko‐Lopp, D., Kuntz, M., & Wilcox, H. C. (2023) · Archives of Suicide Research · doi:10.1080/13811118.2023.2247033 · Cited by 12
Vaillancourt, C., Ahmed, M., Kirk, S., Labonté, M., Laar, A. K., Mah, C. L., Minaker, L. M., Olstad, D. L., Kent, M. P., Provencher, V., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Behavioral Nutrition and Physical Activity · doi:10.1186/s12966-024-01558-x · Cited by 10
Plans‐Beriso, E., de Villiers, C. B., Petrova, D., Barahona-López, C., Diez‐Echave, P., Hernández, O. R., Fernández‐Martínez, N. F., Turner, H., García‐Ovejero, E., Craciun, O., et al. (2024) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02554-9 · Cited by 10
Gartlehner, G., Dobrescu, A. I., Wagner, G., Chapman, A. L., Persad, E., Nowak, C. P., Klerings, I., Neubauer-Bruckner, C., Feyertag, J., Gadinger, A., et al. (2025) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/annals-24-02034 · Cited by 10
Self-citationTaylor, L. C., Kerrison, R., Herrmann, B., & Stoffel, S. (2022) · Preventive Medicine Reports · doi:10.1016/j.pmedr.2022.101747 · Cited by 10
Zhao, J., Smith, T., Lavigne, M., Aenishaenslin, C., Cox, R., Fazil, A., Johnson, A. P., Sánchez, J., & Hermant, B. (2022) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2022.861594 · Cited by 10
What influences decisions to donate plasma? A rapid review of the literature
Berger, M., Easterbrook, A., Holloway, K. J., Devine, D. V., & Bansback, N. J. (2023) · Vox Sanguinis · doi:10.1111/vox.13496 · Cited by 10
Rebić, N., Park, J. Y. E., Garg, R., Ellis, U. M., Kelly, A., Davidson, E., & Vera, M. A. D. (2021) · Arthritis Care & Research · doi:10.1002/acr.24744 · Cited by 10
Medication safety incidents associated with the remote delivery of primary care: a rapid review
Gleeson, L. L., Clyne, B., Barlow, J. W., Ryan, B., Murphy, P., Wallace, E., De Brún, A., Mellon, L., Hanratty, M., Ennis, M., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Pharmacy Practice · doi:10.1093/ijpp/riac087 · Cited by 9
Whitehorn, A., Lockwood, C. S., Hu, Y., Xing, W., Zhu, Z., & Porritt, K. A. (2024) · JBI Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.11124/jbies-23-00557 · Cited by 9
Shin, H. D., Kemp, J., Groves, S., Bennett‐Poynter, L., Pape, C., Lascelles, K. M., & Strudwick, G. (2024) · Journal of Psychiatric and Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/jpm.13102 · Cited by 9
Where is the exit? The ethical importance of exit plans in clinical trials with neural implants
Schönweitz, F. B., Ruess, A. K., McLennan, S., Buyx, A., & Ienca, M. (2024) · Brain stimulation · doi:10.1016/j.brs.2024.09.010 · Cited by 9
Consensus guideline for the management of colorectal cancer with peritoneal metastases
Schultz, K. S., Bansal, V. V., Wach, M. M., Bhutiani, N., Godley, F. A., Wang, J., Waheed, M. T., Buchheit, J. T., Papai, E., Campbell, S. E., et al. (2025) · Cancer · doi:10.1002/cncr.35869 · Cited by 9
Assfaw, A. D., Babulal, G. M., Balls‐Berry, J. E., Mozersky, J. T., Moulder, K. L., & Morris, J. C. (2025) · Alzheimer s & Dementia · doi:10.1002/alz.70459 · Cited by 10
Methods for co‐designing health innovations with older adults: A rapid review
Gagnon, L., Turcotte, S., DeBroux‐Leduc, R., Gauthier, P., & Bier, N. (2025) · Australian Journal on Ageing · doi:10.1111/ajag.70065 · Cited by 9
Enhancing the quality of systematic reviews and meta-analyses
Strawbridge, R., Sharma, D., Kisely, S. R., Cristea, I. A., Young, A. H., & Kaufman, K. R. (2025) · BJPsych Open · doi:10.1192/bjo.2025.10876 · Cited by 9
Abdelmeguid, A., & Corsini, L. (2026) · Business Strategy and the Environment · doi:10.1002/bse.70559 · Cited by 9
Heijmans, M., Poortvliet, R., van der Gaag, M., González‐González, A. I., Puerta, J. B., Canelo‐Aybar, C., Valli, C., Ballester, M., Rocha, C. A., León‐García, M., et al. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph191912685 · Cited by 9
Rapid Scoping Review: Empathy in Health Sciences Curriculum
Robinson, R. F., Meluski, K., Hellem, T., Hedwig, T., Hansen, N. E., Adams, J. L., Nies, M. A., & Salazar, K. (2023) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare11101429 · Cited by 9
Sasseville, M., Ouellet, S., Rhéaume, C., Couture, V., Després, P., Paquette, J., Gentelet, K., Darmon, D., Bergeron, F., & Gagnon, M. (2023) · JMIR Research Protocols · doi:10.2196/46684 · Cited by 9
Cremer, S., Ginkel, J. M. D. M., Zwakhalen, S. M. G., Willems, J., Metzelthin, S., Veenstra, M. Y., & Bleijlevens, M. H. C. (2023) · Journal of Nursing Scholarship · doi:10.1111/jnu.12921 · Cited by 9
Picturing Bravery: A Rapid Review of Needle Procedures Depicted in Children’s Picture Books
Nauman, H., Dobson, O., Taddio, A., Birnie, K. A., & McMurtry, C. M. (2023) · Children · doi:10.3390/children10071097 · Cited by 9
Sensor-based augmented visual feedback for coordination training in healthy adults: a scoping review
Hegi, H., Heitz, J., & Kredel, R. (2023) · Frontiers in Sports and Active Living · doi:10.3389/fspor.2023.1145247 · Cited by 9
A systematic review of dentists' psychological wellbeing during the COVID-19 pandemic
Lefkowitz, B., Houdmont, J., & Knight, A. (2023) · BDJ · doi:10.1038/s41415-023-6232-8 · Cited by 9
Hendrikse, C., Ngah, V., Kallon, I. I., Leong, T. D. D., & McCaul, M. (2023) · African Journal of Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.afjem.2023.10.002 · Cited by 9
Worse becomes the worst: obesity inequality, its determinants and policy options in Iran
Toorang, F., Amiri, P., Djazayery, A., Pouraram, H., & Takian, A. (2024) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1225260 · Cited by 9
Adamu, A. A., Jalo, R. I., Masresha, B., Ndwandwe, D. E., & Wiysonge, C. S. (2024) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines12080896 · Cited by 12
PSM Writing Group, & Turaga, K. K. (2024) · medRxiv · doi:10.1101/2024.04.07.24305467 · Cited by 9
Cassidy, O., Harte, M., Trela-Larsen, L., Walsh, C., White, A., McCullagh, L., & Leahy, J. (2023) · Value in Health · doi:10.1016/j.jval.2023.07.001 · Cited by 8
Radziszewski, S., Parent, S., St-Pierre, E., Daignault, I. V., Hébert, M., & Baril, K. (2024) · Trauma Violence & Abuse · doi:10.1177/15248380241253822 · Cited by 9
Horton, V., Hanthorn, C. J., Dixon, A. L., Edache, S., Thackrah, A., Mitzel, D., de Noronha, L., Cohnstaedt, L. W., Brown, V. R., Mire, C. E., et al. (2024) · Frontiers in Sustainable Food Systems · doi:10.3389/fsufs.2024.1455455 · Cited by 8
Nevill, T., Keeley, J., Hunt, S., Skoss, R., Lindly, O. J., Downs, J. A., & Blackmore, A. M. (2024) · Children · doi:10.3390/children12010009 · Cited by 8
Telemonitoring in Chronic Heart Failure Among the Elderly: A Rapid Review of Literature
Roaquin, L., Apsay, K. L. G., Pangan, C. R., Hangdaan, L., & Lin, Y. (2025) · SAGE Open Nursing · doi:10.1177/23779608251316823 · Cited by 8
Antoniou, S. A., Carrano, F. M., Tzanis, A. Α., Perivoliotis, K., Kumar, S. S., Christogiannis, C., Mavridis, D., Huo, B., Bouvy, N. D., Christou, N., et al. (2025) · Surgical Endoscopy · doi:10.1007/s00464-025-11782-6 · Cited by 8
Understanding the Perspectives of School Children Who Stutter: A Rapid Review
Alhazimi, A. Y., Carroll, C., & O’Malley, M.-P. (2025) · International Journal of Language & Communication Disorders · doi:10.1111/1460-6984.70075 · Cited by 8
Claessens, Z., Vanneste, A., Isterdael, C. V., Verbeke, C., Wens, I., & Huys, I. (2025) · Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · doi:10.1186/s13023-025-03838-6 · Cited by 8
Negrea, V., & Gartland, C. (2025) · Review of Education · doi:10.1002/rev3.70120 · Cited by 11
A rapid review exploring nurse‐led memory clinics
Luck, K. E., & Doucet, S. A. (2020) · Nursing Open · doi:10.1002/nop2.688 · Cited by 8
Bolster, J. L., Pithia, P., & Batt, A. M. (2022) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.32864 · Cited by 10
Searching for evidence in public health emergencies: a white paper of best practices
Brody, S., Loree, S., Sampson, M., Mensinkai, S., Coffman, J. L., Mueller, M., Askin, N., Hamill, C., Wilson, E., McAteer, M. B., et al. (2023) · Journal of the Medical Library Association JMLA · doi:10.5195/jmla.2023.1530 · Cited by 8
Bailey, R. P., Vašíčková, J., Payne, R., Demidoff, A. R., & Scheuer, C. (2023) · Cities & Health · doi:10.1080/23748834.2023.2213428 · Cited by 8
Canadian Association of Radiologists Obstetrics and Gynecology Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guideline
Hamel, C., Amir, B., Avard, B., Fung‐Kee‐Fung, K., Furey, B., Garel, J., & Ghandehari, H. (2023) · Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal · doi:10.1177/08465371231185292 · Cited by 8
Self-citationCanadian Association of Radiologists Musculoskeletal System Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guideline
Hamel, C., Avard, B., Gorelik, N., Heroux, M., Mai, D., Sheikh, A. M., Vo, A., Watson, M.-L., & Rakhra, K. S. (2023) · Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal · doi:10.1177/08465371231190807 · Cited by 8
Self-citationUchimura, L. Y. T., Figueiró, M. F., Silva, D. B., de Paiva, L. K., Chrispim, P. P. M., & Yonekura, T. (2023) · Revista Panamericana de Salud Pública · doi:10.26633/rpsp.2023.143 · Cited by 12
Rapid review: A review of methods and recommendations based on current evidence
Guo, Q., Jiang, G., Zhao, Q., Long, Y., Feng, K., Gu, X., Xu, Y., Li, Z., Huang, J., & Du, L. (2024) · Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1111/jebm.12594 · Cited by 8
Schultz, T., Zhou, M., Gray, J., Roseleur, J., Clark, C. R., Mordaunt, D., Hibbert, P. D., Haysom, G., & Wright, M. (2024) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-024-02501-8 · Cited by 8
Petrescu‐Mag, R. M., Erős, N., & Petrescu, D. C. (2024) · Sustainable Environment · doi:10.1080/27658511.2024.2427511 · Cited by 10
Transmission of SARS-CoV-2 by children: a rapid review, 30 December 2019 to 10 August 2020
Clyne, B., Jordan, K., Ahern, S., Walsh, K. A., Byrne, P., Carty, P. G., Drummond, L., O’Brien, K. K., Smith, S. M., Harrington, P., et al. (2022) · Eurosurveillance · doi:10.2807/1560-7917.es.2022.27.5.2001651 · Cited by 8
Evidenzsynthesen in Public Health: ein Überblick
Barnes, B., Buchmann, M., Mumm, R., Nowossadeck, E., Peitz, D., Prütz, F., Wachtler, B., & Wienecke, A. (2022) · Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2022.09.003 · Cited by 8
Rapid evidence synthesis to enable innovation and adoption in health and social care
Norman, G., Wilson, P. M., Dumville, J. C., Bower, P., & Cullum, N. A. (2022) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-022-02106-z · Cited by 8
Reid, M. R., Danguecan, A. N., Colindres, I., Witherspoon, D., Rubinstein, T. B., Drenkard, C., Knight, A., & Cunningham, N. R. (2023) · Lupus · doi:10.1177/09612033231164637 · Cited by 9
Arentz, S., Hunter, J., Khamba, B., Mravunac, M., Lee, Z., Alexander, K., Lauche, R., Goldenberg, J. Z., & Myers, S. P. (2021) · Integrative Medicine Research · doi:10.1016/j.imr.2021.100779 · Cited by 8
Yu, G., Craig, D., & Fu, Y. (2022) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2022-062078 · Cited by 8
Jiang, H., Dowling, R., Hameed, M. A., Painter, F. L., Vuong, A. T., Booth, A., Opie, J. E., Boh, J., McLean, N., & McIntosh, J. E. (2022) · Open Journal of Social Sciences · doi:10.4236/jss.2022.1011022 · Cited by 8
McDool, E., Powell, P. A., & Carlton, J. (2024) · Orphanet Journal of Rare Diseases · doi:10.1186/s13023-024-03256-0 · Cited by 7
Sijm-Eeken, M. E., Ossebaard, H. C., Čaluković, A., Temme, B., Peute, L., & Jaspers, M. (2024) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-024-11749-8 · Cited by 7
Weekes, C. E., de van der Schueren, M. A. E., Keller, H., Steiber, A. L., Marshall, S., Lim, S. L., & Baldwin, C. (2025) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.70028 · Cited by 7
Brandão, A. A., Rodrigues, C. I. S., Bortolotto, L. A., Luna, L. C., Barros, B. M., Neves, M. F., Moura, A. F., Plavnik, F. L., Drager, L. F., Filho, O. M., et al. (2025) · Arquivos Brasileiros de Cardiologia · doi:10.36660/abc.20240761 · Cited by 8
Poole, M. K., Lee, M. M., Bleich, S. N., & Kenney, E. L. (2025) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2024.01352 · Cited by 7
England, C. Y., Needham-Taylor, A., Bromham, N., Hounsome, J. C., Gillen, E., Davies, J. R., Edwards, R. T., Edwards, A., Cooper, A., & Lewis, R. A. (2026) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2025-109050 · Cited by 7
Hatakeyama, Y., Seto, K., Hirata, K., Onishi, R., Matsumoto, K., & Hasegawa, T. (2022) · BMC Health Services Research · doi:10.1186/s12913-022-07492-7 · Cited by 7
Kamba, G., & Plourde, V. (2022) · Archives of Clinical Neuropsychology · doi:10.1093/arclin/acac011 · Cited by 7
Buro, A. W., Crowder, S. L., Rozen, E., Stern, M., & Carson, T. L. (2023) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph20043355 · Cited by 7
Gao, Y., Zhao, Y., Zhang, X., Tian, J., Guyatt, G. H., & Hao, Q. (2023) · EClinicalMedicine · doi:10.1016/j.eclinm.2023.102058 · Cited by 7
Shared decision-making training in general practice: a rapid review
Nyamapfene, T., & Merchant, H. (2023) · Future Healthcare Journal · doi:10.7861/fhj.2022-0120 · Cited by 7
Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on oncological care in Germany: rapid review
Santis, K. K. D., Helmer, S. M., Barnes, B., Kraywinkel, K., Imhoff, M., Müller-Eberstein, R., Kirstein, M., Quatmann, A., Simke, J., Stiens, L., et al. (2023) · Journal of Cancer Research and Clinical Oncology · doi:10.1007/s00432-023-05063-9 · Cited by 7
Risk Factors Associated with Missing Incidents among Persons Living with Dementia: A Scoping Review
Perez, H., Cruz, A. M., Neubauer, N., Daum, C., Comeau, A. K., Marshall, S. D., Letts, E., & Liu, L. (2024) · Canadian Journal on Aging / La Revue canadienne du vieillissement · doi:10.1017/s0714980823000776 · Cited by 7
Harrison, J., Lind, P., Sawleshwarkar, S., Pasupathy, D., & Yapa, H. M. (2024) · International Journal of Gynecology & Obstetrics · doi:10.1002/ijgo.15425 · Cited by 11
Poß-Doering, R., Keller, S., Zugaj, M. R., Seidling, H. M., Paul, C., Stolz, R., Kaufmann-Kolle, P., & Straßner, C. (2024) · Zeitschrift für Evidenz Fortbildung und Qualität im Gesundheitswesen · doi:10.1016/j.zefq.2024.01.005 · Cited by 7
Cooper, A., Lewis, R., Gal, M., Joseph‐Williams, N., Greenwell, J., Watkins, A. K., Strong, A., Williams, D., Doe, E., Law, R., et al. (2024) · Global Health Research and Policy · doi:10.1186/s41256-024-00354-1 · Cited by 7
Dyspnea and Palliative Care in Advanced Chronic Obstructive Pulmonary Disease
Miller, S. N., Higgins, E. A., Cain, J., Coyne, P. J., Peacock, R., Logan, A., Fasolino, T. K., & Lindell, K. O. (2024) · Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing · doi:10.1097/njh.0000000000001042 · Cited by 7
Nasirzadeh, N., Golbabaei, F., Esmaielpour, M. R. M., & Shekaftik, S. O. (2024) · Journal of Industrial Textiles · doi:10.1177/15280837241289141 · Cited by 7
Barry, C., Larner, E., Copsey, H., Hawkes, M., & Peryer, G. (2021) · Current Opinion in Supportive and Palliative Care · doi:10.1097/spc.0000000000000570 · Cited by 7
Geneen, L. J., Gilbert, J., Reeves, T., Mainie, P., Maresh, M., Smith, L., Wu, P., & Parisaei, M. (2022) · Reproductive Female and Child Health · doi:10.1002/rfc2.6 · Cited by 7
Nelson, D., Cooke, S., McLeod, B., Nanyonjo, A., Kane, R., & Gussy, M. G. (2022) · International Journal of Environmental Research and Public Health · doi:10.3390/ijerph192416863 · Cited by 7
Utilization of innovative medical technologies in German inpatient care: does evidence matter?
Eckhardt, H., Felgner, S., Dreger, M., Fuchs, S., Ermann, H., Rödiger, H., Rombey, T., Busse, R., Henschke, C., & Пантели, Д. (2023) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-023-01047-w · Cited by 7
Ekeleme, N. C., Yusuf, A., Kastner, M., Waite, K., Montesanti, S. R., Atherton, H., Salvalaggio, G., Langford, L., Sediqzadah, S., Ziegler, C. P., et al. (2024) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2023-079244 · Cited by 7
Barnes, M., Rice, K., Murray, C., & Thorsteinsson, E. (2022) · PeerJ · doi:10.7717/peerj.14382 · Cited by 7
Wallace, M. M., Collins, J. P., Moline, H. L., Plumb, I. D., Godfrey, M., Morgan, R. L., Campos-Outcalt, D. E., Oliver, S. E., Dooling, K. L., & Gargano, J. W. (2022) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0278624 · Cited by 7
Canadian Association of Radiologists Trauma Diagnostic Imaging Referral Guideline
Hamel, C., Abdeen, N., Avard, B., Campbell, S., Corser, N., Ditkofsky, N. G., Berger, F. H., & Murray, N. (2023) · Canadian Association of Radiologists Journal · doi:10.1177/08465371231182972 · Cited by 7
Self-citationDougherty, L., Mathur, S., Gul, X., Spielman, K. L., Tripathi, V., Wakefield, C., & Silva, M. (2023) · Global Health Science and Practice · doi:10.9745/ghsp-d-22-00407 · Cited by 7
El Mikati, I. K., Morgan, R. L., Murad, M. H., Sultan, S., Falck-Ytter, Y., & Mustafa, R. A. (2023) · Clinical Microbiology and Infection · doi:10.1016/j.cmi.2023.01.020 · Cited by 6
Sauls, R., Buro, A. W., & Kirby, R. S. (2024) · American Journal of Health Promotion · doi:10.1177/08901171241235731 · Cited by 6
Consensus Guideline for the Management of Gastric Cancer with Synchronous Peritoneal Metastases
Butensky, S. D., Bansal, V. V., Su, D. G., Waheed, M. T., Nikiforchin, A., Gómez-Mayorga, J. L., Olecki, E. J., Radomski, S. N., Sun, B. J., Turaga, K. K., et al. (2025) · Annals of Surgical Oncology · doi:10.1245/s10434-025-17361-2 · Cited by 6
Metadata
- Authors
- Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A.
- Affiliations
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
- Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
- Oregon Health & Science University (US)
- Canada's Drug Agency (CA)
- Cochrane Canada (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Garritty, Chantelle
- ORCID
- Venue
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-02
- Volume
- 130
- Pages
- 13-22
- ISSN
- 0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7557165
- OpenAlex
- W3092985072
- Semantic Scholar
- d1ae29467ce3e63c1b2c4c485db6ec81786b66d9
- Cited by
- 1,141
- References
- 37
- Citations by year
- 2026: 149 · 2025: 199 · 2024: 276 · 2023: 234 · 2022: 168 · 2021: 88
- FWCI
- 78.66
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- hybrid
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
- Donau-Universität Krems
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
- Keywords
- rapid review, evidence synthesis, systematic review methodology, Cochrane Collaboration, decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Research Report
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
