Julie Polisena, Chantelle Garritty, Craig A. Umscheid, Chris Kamel, Kevin Samra, Jeannette Smith, Ann Vosilla
Abstract
The demand for accelerated forms of evidence synthesis is on the rise, largely in response to requests by health care decision makers for expeditious assessment and up-to-date information about health care technologies and health services and programs. As a field, rapid review evidence synthesis is marked by a tension between the strategic priority to inform health care decision-making and the scientific imperative to produce robust, high-quality research that soundly supports health policy and practice.In early 2015, the Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health convened a forum in partnership with the British Columbia Ministry of Health, the British Columbia Centre for Clinical Epidemiology and Evaluation, the Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, and the University of Pennsylvania. More than 150 evidence synthesis producers and end users attended the Rapid Review Summit: Then, Now and in the Future. The Summit program focused on the evolving role and practices of rapid reviews to support informed health care policy and clinical decision-making, including the uptake and use of health technology assessment.Our discussion paper highlights the important discussions that occurred during the Rapid Review Summit. It focuses on the initial development of a research agenda that resulted from the Summit presentations and discussions. The research topics centered on three key areas of interest: (1) how to conduct a rapid review; (2) investigating the validity and utility of rapid reviews; and (3) how to improve access to rapid reviews.
This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 11. 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 30 December 2017.
All research outputs
#3,448,585
of 26,378,648 outputs
Outputs from Systematic Reviews
#604
of 2,287 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#43,129
of 287,913 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Systematic Reviews
#7
of 36 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 26,378,648 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done well and is in the 86th percentile: it's in the top 25% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 2,287 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 gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 73% 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 287,913 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done well, scoring higher than 85% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 36 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 80% of its contemporaries.
