You are here

Article Text

Article menu
Download PDFPDF
Letter
Quality appraisal of evidence generated during a crisis: in defence of ‘timeliness’ and ‘clarity’ as criteria
  1. G James Rubin,
  2. Simon Wessely,
  3. Neil Greenberg,
  4. Samantha K Brooks
  1. Department of Psychological Medicine, King's College London, London, UK
  1. Correspondence to Professor G James Rubin, King's College London, London WC2R 2LS, UK; gideon.rubin{at}kcl.ac.uk

https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2021-111760

Statistics from Altmetric.com

    Request Permissions

    If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

    In 2020, SARS-CoV-2 spread across the globe with incredible speed. Policymakers had to make impossible decisions and act quickly. With gold-standard systematic reviews taking 6 months–2 years to complete,1 it is no surprise that many authors used rapid review methods instead in order to provide guidance in a matter of days or weeks. In their review, Abbott et al graded the quality of 280 reviews published in the first 5 months of the pandemic and found 46 that were rapid reviews.2 This included our paper3: ‘The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review …

    View Full Text

    Footnotes

    • Contributors GJR composed the first draft of the letter, after discussions with SW, NG and SKB. All authors reviewed the final document and agreed with its submission.

    • Funding This work was supported by the National Institute for Health Research Health Protection Research Unit (NIHR HPRU) in Emergency Preparedness and Response, a partnership between Public Health England, King’s College London and the University of East Anglia (grant number NIHR200890).

    • Disclaimer The views expressed are those of the author(s) and not necessarily those of the NIHR, Public Health England or the Department of Health and Social Care.

    • Competing interests None declared.

    • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; internally peer reviewed.