| Title |
Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Systematic Reviews, April 2015
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Robin M Featherstone, Donna M Dryden, Michelle Foisy, Jeanne-Marie Guise, Matthew D Mitchell, Robin A Paynter, Karen A Robinson, Craig A Umscheid, Lisa Hartling |
| Abstract |
Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs. A systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented. A cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods. RR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 85 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 17 | 20% |
| Canada | 13 | 15% |
| United States | 5 | 6% |
| Spain | 5 | 6% |
| Australia | 4 | 5% |
| Germany | 2 | 2% |
| France | 1 | 1% |
| Belgium | 1 | 1% |
| Timor-Leste | 1 | 1% |
| Other | 2 | 2% |
| Unknown | 34 | 40% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 46 | 54% |
| Scientists | 22 | 26% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 9 | 11% |
| Science communicators (journalists, bloggers, editors) | 8 | 9% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 189 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 1 | <1% |
| Spain | 1 | <1% |
| United States | 1 | <1% |
| Canada | 1 | <1% |
| Unknown | 185 | 98% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Researcher | 28 | 15% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 22 | 12% |
| Student > Master | 22 | 12% |
| Other | 13 | 7% |
| Student > Bachelor | 10 | 5% |
| Other | 42 | 22% |
| Unknown | 52 | 28% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 54 | 29% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 22 | 12% |
| Social Sciences | 16 | 8% |
| Agricultural and Biological Sciences | 8 | 4% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 5 | 3% |
| Other | 28 | 15% |
| Unknown | 56 | 30% |
Attention Score in Context
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 55. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 08 March 2022.
All research outputs
#780,383
of 25,732,188 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#98
of 2,249 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#9,226
of 280,419 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#2
of 45 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,732,188 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 96th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,249 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.2. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 280,419 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 96% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 45 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.