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/

Zendy Plus

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

Zendy Tools

Zendy Open

Background  The rapid review is an approach to synthesizing research evidence when a shorter timeframe is required. The implications of what is lost in terms of rigour, increased bias and accuracy when conducting a rapid review have not yet been elucidated.    Methods  We assessed the potential implications of methodological shortcuts on the outcomes of three completed systematic reviews addressing agri‐food public health topics. For each review, shortcuts were applied individually to assess the impact on the number of relevant studies included and whether omitted studies affected the direction, magnitude or precision of summary estimates from meta‐analyses.    Results  In most instances, the shortcuts resulted in at least one relevant study being omitted from the review. The omission of studies affected 39 of 143 possible meta‐analyses, of which 14 were no longer possible because of insufficient studies (<2). When meta‐analysis was possible, the omission of studies generally resulted in less precise pooled estimates (i.e. wider confidence intervals) that did not differ in direction from the original estimate.    Conclusions  The three case studies demonstrated the risk of missing relevant literature and its impact on summary estimates when methodological shortcuts are applied in rapid reviews. © 2016 The Authors.  Research Synthesis Methods  Published by John Wiley & Sons Ltd.

research synthesis methods

Implications of applying methodological shortcuts to expedite systematic reviews: three case studies using systematic reviews from agri‐food public health