Jove
Visualize
Contact Us
JoVE
x logofacebook logolinkedin logoyoutube logo
ABOUT JoVE
OverviewLeadershipBlogJoVE Help Center
AUTHORS
Publishing ProcessEditorial BoardScope & PoliciesPeer ReviewFAQSubmit
LIBRARIANS
TestimonialsSubscriptionsAccessResourcesLibrary Advisory BoardFAQ
RESEARCH
JoVE JournalMethods CollectionsJoVE Encyclopedia of ExperimentsArchive
EDUCATION
JoVE CoreJoVE BusinessJoVE Science EducationJoVE Lab ManualFaculty Resource CenterFaculty Site
Terms & Conditions of Use
Privacy Policy
Policies

Related Concept Videos

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches01:23

Types of Biopharmaceutical Studies: Controlled and Non-Controlled Approaches

Biopharmaceutical studies constitute a vital field aiming to enhance drug delivery methods and refine therapeutic approaches, drawing upon diverse interdisciplinary knowledge. In research methodologies, the choice between controlled and non-controlled studies significantly influences the study's reliability and accuracy.
Non-controlled studies, commonly employed for initial exploration, lack a control group, rendering them susceptible to biases and external influences. In contrast, controlled...
Bioavailability Study Design: Single Versus Multiple Dose Studies01:11

Bioavailability Study Design: Single Versus Multiple Dose Studies

Bioavailability studies are essential for understanding how a drug is absorbed, distributed, metabolized, and excreted in the body. These studies assess the extent and rate at which the active pharmaceutical agent becomes available at the site of action. The design of bioavailability studies can involve single-dose or multiple-dose regimens, each with distinct advantages and limitations.Single-dose studies are the preferred approach due to their simplicity and reduced drug exposure for...
Pharmaceutical Alternatives: Polymorphic Form-Related and Particle Size-Related Therapeutic Nonequivalence01:27

Pharmaceutical Alternatives: Polymorphic Form-Related and Particle Size-Related Therapeutic Nonequivalence

Changes in polymorphic forms can significantly influence the bioavailability of poorly soluble drugs. Although the FDA defines pharmaceutical equivalence based on having the same active ingredient, dosage form, and route of administration, it does not automatically disqualify products with different polymorphic forms. This means two products with different polymorphs can still be deemed pharmaceutically equivalent. However, polymorphic differences can affect properties like wettability,...
Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients01:15

Bioavailability Study Design: Healthy Subjects Versus Patients

Bioavailability studies are essential for evaluating a drug's therapeutic efficacy and understanding its absorption patterns under various physiological conditions. Conducting such studies on target patient populations provides more relevant data by simulating real-world disease states. However, practical challenges often necessitate the use of young, healthy adult volunteers as study subjects.Patients may exhibit altered drug absorption patterns due to the effects of the disease itself,...
Clinical Trials: Overview01:11

Clinical Trials: Overview

Clinical development focuses on how the drug will interact with the human body and encompasses four key phases of clinical trials, each serving a specific purpose in assessing the safety and effectiveness of new drugs. These phases overlap and build upon one another. Phase I involves a small group of healthy volunteers (typically 20-80 individuals) or, in cases where significant toxicity is expected, patients with the targeted disease, such as cancer or AIDS. The volunteers are tested for...
Clinical Trials01:16

Clinical Trials

Clinical trials are prospective experimental studies conducted on humans to determine the safety and efficacy of treatments, drugs, diet methods, and medical devices. Using statistics in clinical trials enables researchers to derive reasonable and accurate conclusions from the collected data, allowing them to make wise decisions in uncertain situations. In medical research, statistical methods are crucial for preventing errors and bias.
There are four phases in a clinical trial. A phase one...

You might also read

Related Articles

Articles linked to this work by shared authors, journal, and citation graph.

Sort by
Same author

The Beginning of the End?

ANZ journal of surgery·2026
Same author

The Role of Non-Technical Errors in Hip Fracture Mortality: A National Retrospective Cohort Study.

ANZ journal of surgery·2026
Same author

Changes in Surgical Admissions and Outcomes During and After the COVID-19 Pandemic: An Exploration of the Australian and New Zealand Audit of Surgical Mortality (ANZASM).

ANZ journal of surgery·2026
Same author

Looking Good From the End of Bed: Surgical Clinical Intuition.

ANZ journal of surgery·2026
Same author

Differentiating scar behaviour: Transepidermal water loss in delayed healing and skin graft scars.

Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries·2026
Same author

Response to letter re: "Commonly recommended moisturizing products effect on transepidermal water loss and hydration in a scar model".

Burns : journal of the International Society for Burn Injuries·2026

Related Experiment Video

Updated: Jun 28, 2026

Optimized LC-MS/MS Method for the High-throughput Analysis of Clinical Samples of Ivacaftor, Its Major Metabolites, and Lumacaftor in Biological Fluids of Cystic Fibrosis Patients
06:14

Optimized LC-MS/MS Method for the High-throughput Analysis of Clinical Samples of Ivacaftor, Its Major Metabolites, and Lumacaftor in Biological Fluids of Cystic Fibrosis Patients

Published on: October 15, 2017

Rapid versus full systematic reviews: validity in clinical practice?

Amber Watt1, Alun Cameron, Lana Sturm

  • 1Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures (ASERNIP-S), Stepney, South Australia, Australia.

ANZ Journal of Surgery
|October 31, 2008
PubMed
Summary

Rapid reviews offer timely advice but often lack methodological detail and have a narrower scope than full systematic reviews. Their conclusions align, but limited scope may affect suitability for all health technology assessments.

More Related Videos

Photodynamic Therapy with Blended Conducting Polymer/Fullerene Nanoparticle Photosensitizers
09:45

Photodynamic Therapy with Blended Conducting Polymer/Fullerene Nanoparticle Photosensitizers

Published on: October 28, 2015

Related Experiment Videos

Last Updated: Jun 28, 2026

Optimized LC-MS/MS Method for the High-throughput Analysis of Clinical Samples of Ivacaftor, Its Major Metabolites, and Lumacaftor in Biological Fluids of Cystic Fibrosis Patients
06:14

Optimized LC-MS/MS Method for the High-throughput Analysis of Clinical Samples of Ivacaftor, Its Major Metabolites, and Lumacaftor in Biological Fluids of Cystic Fibrosis Patients

Published on: October 15, 2017

Photodynamic Therapy with Blended Conducting Polymer/Fullerene Nanoparticle Photosensitizers
09:45

Photodynamic Therapy with Blended Conducting Polymer/Fullerene Nanoparticle Photosensitizers

Published on: October 28, 2015

Area of Science:

  • Health Technology Assessment
  • Evidence-Based Medicine
  • Systematic Reviews

Background:

  • Health Technology Assessment (HTA) agencies increasingly produce rapid reviews to meet demand for swift, evidence-based guidance.
  • This study compares rapid and full systematic reviews on identical topics to assess rapid review validity.

Purpose of the Study:

  • To compare methodologies and conclusions of rapid versus full systematic reviews.
  • To determine the clinical validity of rapid reviews.
  • To provide recommendations for the future use of rapid reviews.

Main Methods:

  • Searched international HTA agency websites for rapid reviews.
  • Identified comparator full systematic reviews using the University of York Centre for Reviews and Dissemination HTA database.
  • Extracted and narratively analyzed data on review components using standardized tables.

Main Results:

  • Essential conclusions of rapid and full reviews showed limited extensive differences.
  • Rapid reviews consistently had a substantially narrower scope than full reviews.
  • Methodologies for rapid reviews were frequently inadequately described.

Conclusions:

  • Rapid reviews lack a single, validated methodology.
  • While often providing adequate decision-making advice, their limited scope may be inappropriate for certain technology evaluations.
  • Recommendations for future application are suggested based on comparative analysis.