Cited by 129Clinical practice guidelines implementationHealth Sciences Research and EducationMeta-analysis and systematic reviews

Introduction to BMJ Rapid Recommendations

Siemieniuk, Reed A, Agoritsas, Thomas, Macdonald, Helen, Guyatt, Gordon H, Brandt, Linn, Vandvik, Per O·2016·BMJ

Abstract

New BMJ collaboration accelerates evidence into practice to answer the questions that matter quickly and transparently through trustworthy recommendations

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj.i5191

Cites

2 of 2 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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 guideline followed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations procedures for creating trustworthy guidance, including using the GRADE approach to critically appraise the evidence and create recommendations.

    “We followed the BMJ Rapid Recommendations procedures for creating trustworthy guidance, 41 including using the GRADE approach to critically appraise the evidence and create recommendations (appendix 2 on bmj.com).42”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Siemieniuk, R. A., Agoritsas, T., Macdonald, H., Guyatt, G. H., Brandt, L., & Vandvik, P. O.
Affiliations
  • University of Toronto (CA)
  • University Hospital of Geneva (CH)
  • BMJ Group (United Kingdom) (GB)
  • McMaster University (CA)
  • University of Oslo (NO)
Corresponding author
Vandvik, Per O
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2016-09-28
Volume
354
Pages
i5191
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W2529351348
Cited by
129
References
2
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 10 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 10 · 2022: 9 · 2021: 19 · 2020: 10 · 2019: 14 · 2018: 21 · 2017: 20 · 2016: 2
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
Topics
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
Keywords
rapid evidence synthesis, clinical guidelines, transparency, trustworthiness

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.

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