English (United Kingdom)

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/featured_content/oa?rat=en

https://curated-unify.zendy.io/wp-json/zendy-region/v1/highlighted_journal/

Global: Zendy Plus annual

Presents the access of premium content as premium feature

Premium Content

Presents the keyphrase highlighting as premium feature

Keyphrase Highlighting

Presents the summarisation as premium feature

Summarisation

Insights

Presents the pdf analysis as premium feature

PDF Analysis

Presents the zaia usage as premium feature

ZAIA

Global: Zendy Tools annual

Global: Zendy Free Plan

Global: Zendy Tools monthly

Global: Zendy Plus monthly

Background  Decisionmakers and guideline developers demand rapid syntheses of the evidence when time sensitive evidence-informed decisions are required. A potential trade-off of such rapid reviews is that their results can have less reliability than results of systematic reviews that can lead to an increased risk of making incorrect decisions or recommendations. We sought to determine how much incremental uncertainty about the correctness of an answer guideline developers and health policy decisionmakers are willing to accept in exchange for a rapid evidence-synthesis.    Methods  Employing a purposive sample, we conducted an international web-based, anonymous survey of decisionmakers and guideline developers. Based on a clinical treatment, a public health, and a clinical prevention scenario, participants indicated the maximum risk of getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review that they would be willing to accept. We carefully reviewed data and performed descriptive statistical analyses.    Results  In total, 325 (58.5%) of 556 participants completed our survey and were eligible for analysis. The median acceptable incremental risk for getting an incorrect answer from a rapid review across all three scenarios was 10.0% (interquartile range [IQR] 5.0–15.0). Acceptable risks were similar for the clinical treatment ( n  = 313, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0–15.0]) and the public health scenarios ( n  = 320, median 10.0% [IQR 5.0–15.0]) and lower for the clinical prevention scenario ( n  = 312, median 6.5% [IQR 5.0–10.5]).    Conclusions  Findings suggest that decisionmakers are willing to accept some trade-off in validity in exchange for a rapid review. Nevertheless, they expect the validity of rapid reviews to come close to that of systematic reviews.    Electronic supplementary material  The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0406-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

bmc medical research methodology

Trading certainty for speed - how much uncertainty are decisionmakers and guideline developers willing to accept when using rapid reviews: an international survey