Table 3 Adapted BRIDGE criteria applied to 2016 rapid review reports
Criteria | All (n = 103) | Journal published (n = 52) | Non-journal published (n = 51) | OR (95% CI) | P valuea |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Â | n (%) | n (%) | |||
A. RR commissioned or conducted for decision-making purposes | 79 (77) | 34 (65) | 45 (88) | 0.26 (0.09–0.74) | 0.01 |
B. RR conducted through a rapid response service | 21 (20) | 1 (2) | 20 (39) | 0.03 (0.00–0.20) | < 0.0001 |
C. Topic identified through a priority-setting exercise | 1 (1) | 0 (0) | 1 (2) | 0.00 (0.00–18.63) | 0.50 |
D. RR addresses | |||||
 Political and/or health systems contexts | 63 (61) | 30 (58) | 33 (65) | 0.75 (0.32–1.69) | 0.55 |
 Problem related to the issue | 99 (96) | 52 (100) | 47 (92) | OR not available | 0.06 |
 Options | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | 0 (0) | OR not available | 1.00 |
 Implementation considerations | 32 (31) | 15 (29) | 17 (33) | 0.81 (0.35–1.95) | 0.67 |
 Cost implications | 36 (35) | 13 (25) | 23 (45) | 0.41 (0.17–0.98) | 0.04 |
 RR addressed at least four or more of the above issues | 14 (14) | 6 (12) | 8 (16) | 0.70 (0.22–2.35) | 0.58 |
E. RR attempted to synthesise research evidence | 103 (100) | 52 (100) | 51 (100) | OR not available | 1.00 |
F. RR incorporates tacit knowledge of policy-makers/stakeholders | 33 (32) | 15 (29) | 18 (35) | 0.75 (0.32–1.83) | 0.54 |
G. If yes, knowledge collected in systematic, transparent wayb | 16 (48) (n = 33) | 11 (73) (n = 15) | 5 (28) (n = 18) | 6.67 (1.42–33.76) | 0.01 |
H. RR explicitly targets policy-makers and/or stakeholders | 68 (66) | 27 (52) | 41 (80) | 0.27 (0.11–0.67) | 0.003 |
I. RR was reviewed by policy-makers and/or key stakeholders for relevance and clarity | 28 (27) | 10 (19) | 18 (35) | 0.44 (0.17–1.08) | 0.08 |
J. RR reviewed by patients/consumers for relevance and clarity | 6 (6) | 3 (6) | 3 (6) | 0.98 (0.17–5.67) | 1.00 |
K. RR formally involved patients in phases of the RR conduct | 6 (6) | 3 (6) | 3 (6) | 0.98 (0.17–5.67) | 1.00 |
Across any of following phases: | |||||
 Preparatory phase | 3 | 1 | 2 |  |  |
 Execution phase | 1 | 1 | 0 |  |  |
 Translation phase | 5 | 2 | 3 |  |  |
L. RR organised to highlight decision-relevant information anywhere in the documentc | 27 (26) | 6 (12) | 21 (41) | 0.19 (0.07–0.53) | 0.001 |
| Â | Mean (SD) | MD (SE) | P value | ||
M. RR written in understandable/lay language | |||||
Readability: SMOG Index (years of education) | |||||
 Abstract/Summary | 13.97 (1.51) | 13.91 (1.55) | 14.24 (1.36) | −0.33 (0.29) | 0.25 |
 Introduction/Background | 13.80 (1.75) | 14.01 (1.91) | 13.57 (1.55) | 0.44 (0.34) | 0.20 |
 Discussions/Conclusions | 14.03 (1.98) | 13.79 (1.68) | 14.35 (2.29) | −0.56 (0.40) | 0.16 |
Word count | |||||
 Main body of the report | 8471 (7196) | 6708 (4575) | 10,269 (8818) | − 3561 (1388) | 0.01 |
 Total word count (including references and appendices) | 13,834 (13,382) | 10,343 (10,051) | 17,393 (15,385) | − 7050 (2566) | 0.01 |
Reading time (minutes) | |||||
 Main body of the report | 42 (36) | 33 (23) | 51 (44) | −18 (6.94) | 0.01 |
 Total report (all pages) | 69 (67) | 52 (50) | 87 (77) | −35 (12.82) | 0.01 |
N. RR prepared in a format that makes the information easy to absorb | |||||
 Yes, graded entryd | 24 (23) | 0 (0) | 24 (47) | 0.00 (0.00–0.10) | < 0.0001 |
 Traditional IMRaDe | 52 (50) | 48 (92) | 4 (8) | 125.49 (28.88–586.53) | < 0.0001 |
 Graded entry front end followed by IMRaDf | 13 (13) | 2 (4) | 11 (22) | 0.15 (0.02–0.68) | 0.01 |
 Multicomponent reportg | 14 (14) | 2 (4) | 12 (24) | 0.13 (0.02–0.59) | 0.004 |
O. RR findings contextualised through online commentaries/briefings provided by policy-makers and/or key stakeholders | 5 (5) | 3 (6) | 2 (4) | 1.49 (0.22–12.50) | 1.00 |
P. RR brought to the attention of target audiences through email, listservs, public website posting | 6 (6) | 2 (4) | 4 (8) | 0.47 (0.06–2.67) | 0.44 |
Q. RR addresses equity considerations | 34 (33) | 14 (27) | 20 (39) | 0.57 (0.24–1.38) | 0.21 |
R. RR conveys formal recommendations | 25 (24) | 11 (21) | 14 (27) | 0.71 (0.29–1.86) | 0.50 |
S. Methods to conduct the RR described | 94 (91) | 51 (98) | 43 (84) | 9.32 (1.31–211.38) | 0.02 |
T. Quality assessment/risk of bias assessment of included studies | 58 (56) | 26 (50) | 32 (63) | 0.60 (0.26–1.31) | 0.23 |
U. Limitations of the RR process or approach outlined/provided | 29 (28) | 24 (46) | 5 (10) | 7.72 (2.62–23.47) | < 0.0001 |
V. Reference of included studies provided | 103 (100) | 52 (100) | 51 (100) | Not estimable | 1.00 |
W. Local applicability discussed | 55 (53) | 19 (37) | 36 (71) | 0.24 (0.10–0.56) | 0.001 |
X. Case examples included to illustrate how to adapt or apply the intervention/policy locally | |||||
 Yes | 3 | 0 | 3 | 0.00 (0.00–1.66) | 0.12 |
 Not applicable (non-interventional RR) | 11 | 10 | 1 |  |  |
Y. Key messages or summary points provided | 26 (25) | 8 (15) | 18 (35) | 0.34 (0.13–0.88) | 0.02 |
Z. Clearly labelled as ‘rapid’ (explicit phrasing or derivative) | |||||
 Yes, ‘rapid’ stated in the title | 35 (34) | 29 (56) | 6 (12) | 9.23 (3.42–25.79) | < 0.0001 |
 If not stated in title, term labelled in the abstract/elsewhere in report | 36 (35) | 17 (33) | 19 (37) |  |  |
 Other term used to indicate abbreviated/timely (e.g. targeted review, mini-systematic) | 19 (18) | 4 (8) | 15 (29) |  |  |
 Non-descript label used (e.g. evidence note, evidence summary) | 13 (13) | 2 (4) | 11 (22) |  |  |
 Rapid review terminology consistently used to describe the reporth | 73 (71) | 35 (67) | 38 (75) |  |  |