Ebola virus disease information products and timing of the epidemic.

<p>EVD, Ebola virus disease.</p

Guideline development processes in recent public health emergencies.

<p>Guideline development processes in recent public health emergencies.</p

AGREE II scaled domain scores of guidelines developed for H1N1, H7N9, MERS-CoV and EVD.

<p>EVD, Ebola virus disease; MERS-CoV, Middle East Respiratory Syndrome Coronavirus. The AGREE II domains are displayed along the horizontal axis. The data points are the median, interquartile range, and minimum and maximum standardized scores based on the scores of the two reviewers for each domain and outbreak.</p

Characteristics of information products produced by WHO in four recent public health emergencies.

<p>Characteristics of information products produced by WHO in four recent public health emergencies.</p

Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review

<div><p>Introduction</p><p>Rapid reviews (RR), using abbreviated systematic review (SR) methods, are becoming more popular among decision-makers. This World Health Organization commissioned study sought to summarize RR methods, identify differences, and highlight potential biases between RR and SR.</p><p>Methods</p><p>Review of RR methods (Key Question 1 [KQ1]), meta-epidemiologic studies comparing reliability/ validity of RR and SR methods (KQ2), and their potential associated biases (KQ3). We searched Medline, EMBASE, Cochrane Library, grey literature, and checked reference lists, used personal contacts, and crowdsourcing (e.g. email listservs). Selection and data extraction was conducted by one reviewer (KQ1) or two reviewers independently (KQ2-3).</p><p>Results</p><p>Across all KQs, we identified 42,743 citations through the literature searches. KQ1: RR methods from 29 organizations were reviewed. There was no consensus on which aspects of the SR process to abbreviate. KQ2: Studies comparing the conclusions of RR and SR (n = 9) found them to be generally similar. Where major differences were identified, it was attributed to the inclusion of evidence from different sources (e.g. searching different databases or including different study designs). KQ3: Potential biases introduced into the review process were well-identified although not necessarily supported by empirical evidence, and focused mainly on selective outcome reporting and publication biases.</p><p>Conclusion</p><p>RR approaches are context and organization specific. Existing comparative evidence has found similar conclusions derived from RR and SR, but there is a lack of evidence comparing the potential of bias in both evidence synthesis approaches. Further research and decision aids are needed to help decision makers and reviewers balance the benefits of providing timely evidence with the potential for biased findings.</p></div

Summary of methods used by organizations in conducting rapid evidence synthesis.

<p>Summary of methods used by organizations in conducting rapid evidence synthesis.</p

Geographic distribution of organizations conducting rapid evidence synthesis with methods available for review.

<p>Geographic distribution of organizations conducting rapid evidence synthesis with methods available for review.</p

Summary of studies comparing systematic reviews and rapid.

<p>Summary of studies comparing systematic reviews and rapid.</p

Other adverse events in non-comparative studies of healthcare workers wearing personal protective equipment.

<p>Abbreviations: CI = confidence interval; n = number of events; N = number of HCWs at risk for whom we knew the PPE worn; NR = not reported; WHO = World Health Organization. ^aMost studies did not provide data on all healthcare workers; only workers with available data were included.</p

Comparisons of personal protective equipment to prevent transmission of ebolavirus to health care workers.

<p>Comparisons of personal protective equipment to prevent transmission of ebolavirus to health care workers.</p