Assessing how information is packaged in rapid reviews for policy-makers and other stakeholders: a cross-sectional study
Open accessAbstract
Background: Rapid reviews (RRs) are useful products to healthcare policy-makers and other stakeholders, who require timely evidence. Therefore, it is important to assess how well RRs convey useful information in a format that is easy to understand so that decision-makers can make best use of evidence to inform policy and practice. Methods: We assessed a diverse sample of 103 RRs against the BRIDGE criteria, originally developed for communicating clearly to support healthcare policy-making. We modified the criteria to increase assessability and to align with RRs. We identified RRs from key database searches and through searching organisations known to produce RRs. We assessed each RR on 26 factors (e.g. organisation of information, lay language use). Results were descriptively analysed. Further, we explored differences between RRs published in journals and those published elsewhere. Results: Certain criteria were well covered across the RRs (e.g. all aimed to synthesise research evidence and all provided references of included studies). Further, most RRs provided detail on the problem or issue (96%; n = 99) and described methods to conduct the RR (91%; n = 94), while several addressed political or health systems contexts (61%; n = 63). Many RRs targeted policy-makers and key stakeholders as the intended audience (66%; n = 68), yet only 32% (n = 33) involved their tacit knowledge, while fewer (27%; n = 28) directly involved them reviewing the content of the RR. Only six RRs involved patient partners in the process. Only 23% (n = 24) of RRs were prepared in a format considered to make information easy to absorb (i.e. graded entry) and 25% (n = 26) provided specific key messages. Readability assessment indicated that the text of key RR sections would be hard to understand for an average reader (i.e. would require post-secondary education) and would take 42 (± 36) minutes to read. Conclusions: Overall, conformity of the RRs with the modified BRIDGE criteria was modest. By assessing RRs against these criteria, we now understand possible ways in which they could be improved to better meet the information needs of healthcare decision-makers and their potential for innovation as an information-packaging mechanism. The utility and validity of these items should be further explored. Protocol availability: The protocol, published on the Open Science Framework, is available at: osf.io/68tj7
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
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?
Key knowledge users - such as patients and the public, healthcare providers, and policy makers - are frequently involved only to a limited extent, or their involvement is left out or unreported.
“However, the involvement of key knowledge users (eg, patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy makers) is often limited, omitted, or not reported.26”
From Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness (2024) · cites this paper as [26]
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Shea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 · Cited by 10,636 · see citing works
Self-citationROBIS: A new tool to assess risk of bias in systematic reviews was developed
Whiting, P., Savović, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Caldwell, D. M., Reeves, B. C., Shea, B., Davies, P., Kleijnen, J., & Churchill, R. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.06.005 · Cited by 2,272 · see citing works
SMOG Grading - A New Readability Formula.
McLaughlin, G. H. (1969) · The Journal of Reading · Cited by 2,081 · see citing works
Hibbard, J. H., & Greene, J. (2013) · Health Affairs · doi:10.1377/hlthaff.2012.1061 · Cited by 1,787 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Self-citationA 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 · see citing works
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 · see citing works
Borah, R., Brown, A. W., Capers, P. L., & Kaiser, K. A. (2017) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545 · Cited by 737 · cited 1× · see citing works
“However, when evidence is needed to inform an emergent issue outside the traditional SR timeline of 1–2 years [3, 4], ‘rapid reviews’ (RRs) have become a practical tool to get evidence to decision-makers more quickly, often ranging from a few weeks to usually no more than 6 months [3, 5, 6].”
BackgroundTowards systematic reviews that inform health care management and policy-making
Lavis, J. N., Davies, H. T. O., Oxman, A., Denis, J., Golden‐Biddle, K., & Ferlie, E. B. (2005) · Journal of Health Services Research & Policy · doi:10.1258/1355819054308549 · Cited by 582 · see citing works
Wang, L.-W., Miller, M. J., Schmitt, M. R., & Wen, F. K. (2012) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2012.05.009 · Cited by 449 · see citing works
Haby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J. O. M., Revéiz, L., & Lavis, J. N. (2016) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0155-7 · Cited by 410 · see citing works
All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more
Moher, D., Stewart, L., & Shekelle, P. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7 · Cited by 288 · see citing works
Self-citationAssessing reading levels of health information: uses and limitations of flesch formula
Jindal, P., & MacDermid, J. (2017) · Education for Health · doi:10.4103/1357-6283.210517 · Cited by 275 · see citing works
How Can We Support the Use of Systematic Reviews in Policymaking?
Lavis, J. N. (2009) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1000141 · Cited by 245 · see citing works
Lavis, J. N., Permanand, G., Oxman, A. D., Lewin, S. A., & Fretheim, A. (2009) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s13 · Cited by 199 · see citing works
National policy-makers speak out: are researchers giving them what they need?
Hyder, A. A., Corluka, A., WINCH, P. J., et al. (2010) · Health Policy and Planning · doi:10.1093/heapol/czq020 · Cited by 184 · see citing works
(1992) · The Journal of Reading · Cited by 166 · see citing works
Langlois, É. V., Straus, S. E., Antony, J., King, V. J., & Tricco, A. C. (2019) · BMJ Global Health · doi:10.1136/bmjgh-2018-001178 · Cited by 159 · see citing works
Lavis, J. N., Davies, H. T. O., Gruen, R. L., Walshe, K., & Farquhar, C. M. (2006) · Healthcare policy · doi:10.12927/hcpol.2006.17872 · Cited by 123 · see citing works
Lomas, J. (2005) · Healthcare policy · doi:10.12927/hcpol..17567 · Cited by 119 · see citing works
Evidence summaries tailored to health policy-makers in low- and middle-income countries
Rosenbaum, S., Glenton, C., Wiysonge, C. S., Abalos, E. J., Mignini, L. E., Young, T., Althabe, F., Ciapponi, A., Martí, S. G., Meng, Q., et al. (2010) · Bulletin of the World Health Organization · doi:10.2471/blt.10.075481 · Cited by 113 · see citing works
Smith, A. L., Brown, J., Wyman, J. F., Berry, A. K., Newman, D. K., & Stapleton, A. E. (2018) · The Journal of Urology · doi:10.1016/j.juro.2018.04.088 · Cited by 96 · see citing works
Petkovic, J., Welch, V. A., Jacob, M. H., Yoganathan, M., Ayala, A. P., Cunningham, H., & Tugwell, P. (2016) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0530-3 · Cited by 92 · see citing works
Ismail, S. A., Abbara, A., Collin, S. M., Orcutt, M., Coutts, A. P., Maziak, W., Sahloul, Z., Dar, O., Corrah, T., & Fouad, F. M. (2016) · International Journal of Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1016/j.ijid.2016.05.011 · Cited by 89 · see citing works
Oxman, A. D., Lavis, J. N., Lewin, S. A., & Fretheim, A. (2009) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-7-s1-s10 · Cited by 72 · see citing works
on behalf of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group, Garritty, C., Stevens, A., Gartlehner, G., King, V., & Kamel, C. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0360-z · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Self-citationPandor, A., Kaltenthaler, E., James, M. M., Wong, R., Cooper, K. L., Dimairo, M., O’Cathain, A., Campbell, F., & Booth, A. (2019) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2019.06.005 · Cited by 71 · see citing works
Consumer‐driven health care: Building partnerships in research
Shea, B., Santesso, N. A., Qualman, A., Heiberg, T., Leong, A. L., Judd, M., Robinson, V. A., Wells, G. A., Tugwell, P., & the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Consumer Group (2005) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/j.1369-7625.2005.00347.x · Cited by 68 · see citing works
Vogel, J. P., Oxman, A. D., Glenton, C., Rosenbaum, S., Lewin, S. A., Gülmezoglu, A. M., & Souza, J. P. (2013) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-11-19 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Parretti, H. M., Hughes, C. A., & Jones, L. L. (2018) · Obesity Reviews · doi:10.1111/obr.12764 · Cited by 66 · see citing works
Fit for purpose: perspectives on rapid reviews from end-user interviews
Hartling, L., Guise, J.-M., Hempel, S., Featherstone, R., Mitchell, M. D., Motu’apuaka, M. L., Robinson, K. A., Schoelles, K., Totten, A., Whitlock, E., et al. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0425-7 · Cited by 65 · see citing works
Hersi, M., Stevens, A., Quach, P., Hamel, C., Thavorn, K., Garritty, C., Skidmore, B., Vallenas, C., Norris, S. L., Egger, M., et al. (2015) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0140290 · Cited by 64 · see citing works
Self-citationMarquez, C., Johnson, A. M., Jassemi, S., Park, J., Moore, J. E., Blaine, C., Bourdon, G., Chignell, M., Ellen, M., Fortin, J., et al. (2018) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-018-0779-9 · Cited by 61 · see citing works
Self-citationWallace, J. P., Byrne, C., & Clarke, M. J. (2012) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00288.x · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Bambra, C. L., Joyce, K. E., Bellis, M. A., Greatley, A., Greengross, S., Hughes, S., Lincoln, P., Lobstein, T., Naylor, C., Salay, R., et al. (2010) · Journal of Public Health · doi:10.1093/pubmed/fdq028 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Madsen, W., Ambrens, M., & Ohl, M. (2019) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2019.00014 · Cited by 57 · see citing works
Developing WHO rapid advice guidelines in the setting of a public health emergency
Garritty, C. M., Norris, S. L., & Moher, D. (2017) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.08.010 · Cited by 56 · see citing works
Self-citationHaby, M. M., Chapman, E., Clark, R., Barreto, J. O. M., Revéiz, L., & Lavis, J. N. (2015) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/s13012-016-0472-9 · Cited by 53 · see citing works
Mijumbi-Deve, R., Rosenbaum, S. E., Oxman, A. D., Lavis, J. N., & Sewankambo, N. K. (2017) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-017-0200-1 · Cited by 43 · see citing works
Peterson, K., Floyd, N., Ferguson, L., Christensen, V., & Helfand, M. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0306-5 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Wanat, M., Anthierens, S., Butler, C., Wright, J. M., Dracup, N., Pavitt, S. H., Sandoe, J. A. T., & Tonkin-Crine, S. K. (2018) · Antibiotics · doi:10.3390/antibiotics7030071 · Cited by 42 · see citing works
Self-citationBishop, A. C., Elliott, M. J., & Cassidy, C. E. (2018) · Research Involvement and Engagement · doi:10.1186/s40900-018-0110-6 · Cited by 39 · see citing works
Adam, T., Moat, K. A., Ghaffar, A., et al. (2014) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-9-67 · Cited by 32 · see citing works
Wardle, H. (2018) · Addictive Behaviors · doi:10.1016/j.addbeh.2018.10.008 · Cited by 31 · see citing works
Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study
Moore, G., Redman, S., D’Este, C., Makkar, S., & Turner, T. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0411-0 · Cited by 28 · see citing works
A usability study of two formats of a shortened systematic review for clinicians
Perrier, L., Kealey, M. R., & Straus, S. E. (2014) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2014-005919 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Development of two shortened systematic review formats for clinicians
Perrier, L., Persaud, N., Ko, A., et al. (2013) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-8-68 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Perrier, L., Kealey, M. R., & Straus, S. E. (2014) · Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association · doi:10.1136/amiajnl-2014-002660 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Hartling, L., Gates, A. Q., Pillay, J., et al. (2018) · Europe PMC (PubMed Central) · Cited by 9 · see citing works
Garritty, C., Hersi, M., Hamel, C., Stevens, A., Monfaredi, Z., Butler, C., Tricco, A. C., Hartling, L., Stewart, L. A., Welch, V. A., et al. (2020) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0238025 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Self-citation
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 2
- [8]King J Garritty C Stevens A Nussbaumer-Steit B Hartling L Harrod CS Guise J Kamel C Tricco AC Langlois EV Straus SE Chapter 2-Performing Rapid Reviews Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide 2017
- [49]Tricco AC Zarin W Nincic V Rios P Khan PA Ghassemi M Motiwala SS Pham B Oliver S Straus SE Langlois EV Tricco AC Langlois EV Straus SE Chapter 5-Engaging Policy-makers and health systems managers in the conduct of rapid reviews. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide 2017
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Garritty, C., Hamel, C., Trivella, M., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Devane, D., Kamel, C., Griebler, U., & King, V. J. (2024) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076335 · Cited by 260 · see citing works
Self-citationA rapid review on current and potential uses of large language models in nursing
Hobensack, M., von Gerich, H., Vyas, P., Withall, J., Peltonen, L.-M., Block, L. J., Davies, S., Chan, R., Van Bulck, L., Cho, H., et al. (2024) · International Journal of Nursing Studies · doi:10.1016/j.ijnurstu.2024.104753 · Cited by 80 · see citing works
Scoping reviews and rapid reviews
Sabiston, C. M., Vani, M., de Jonge, M., & Nesbitt, A. (2022) · International Review of Sport and Exercise Psychology · doi:10.1080/1750984x.2021.1964095 · Cited by 74 · see citing works
- Authors
- Garritty, C., Hamel, C., Hersi, M., Butler, C., Monfaredi, Z., Stevens, A., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Cheng, W., & Moher, D.
- Affiliations
- Ottawa Hospital (CA)
- Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
- University of Ottawa (CA)
- Corresponding author
- Garritty, Chantelle
- ORCID
- Venue
- Health Research Policy and Systems
- Published
- 2020-09-29
- Volume
- 18
- Issue
- 1
- Pages
- 112-112
- ISSN
- 1478-4505 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC7523380
- OpenAlex
- W2785186396
- Cited by
- 21
- References
- 50
- Citations by year
- 2026: 4 · 2025: 4 · 2024: 8 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 1
- FWCI
- 0.76
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Locations
- Health Research Policy and Systems (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- uO Research (University of Ottawa) (submittedVersion, public-domain)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- Canadian Institutes of Health Research (142310)
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
- Keywords
- rapid review, evidence communication, stakeholder engagement, readability, key messages, patient and public involvement, information structure, health information needs, policy briefs, tacit knowledge, evidence-informed decision-making
- MeSH terms
- Administrative Personnel, Cross-Sectional Studies, Health Policy, Humans, Policy Making, Evidence-Based Medicine
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
