Related Experiment Video
Updated: Feb 4, 2026

A Rapid Automated Protocol for Muscle Fiber Population Analysis in Rat Muscle Cross Sections Using Myosin Heavy Chain Immunohistochemistry
Published on: March 28, 2017
Knowledge user involvement is still uncommon in published rapid reviews-a meta-research cross-sectional study
Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit1, Dominic Ledinger1, Christina Kien1
1Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, https://ror.org/03ef4a036University for Continuing Education Krems, Cochrane Austria, Krems, Austria.
Background:
Involving knowledge users (KUs) such as patients, clinicians, or health policymakers is particularly relevant when conducting rapid reviews (RRs), as they should be tailored to decision-makers' needs. However, little is known about how common KU involvement currently is in RRs.
Objectives:
We wanted to assess the proportion of KU involvement reported in recently published RRs (2021 onwards), which groups of KUs were involved in each phase of the RR process, to what extent, and which factors were associated with KU involvement in RRs.
Methods:
We conducted a meta-research cross-sectional study. A systematic literature search in Ovid MEDLINE and Epistemonikos in January 2024 identified 2,493 unique records. We dually screened the identified records (partly with assistance from an artificial intelligence (AI)-based application) until we reached the a priori calculated sample size of 104 RRs. We dually extracted data and analyzed it descriptively.
Results:
The proportion of RRs that reported KU involvement was 19% (95% confidence interval [CI]: 12%-28%). Most often, KUs were involved during the initial preparation of the RR, the systematic searches, and the interpretation and dissemination of results. Researchers/content experts and public/patient partners were the KU groups most often involved. KU involvement was more common in RRs focusing on patient involvement/shared decision-making, having a published protocol, and being commissioned.
Conclusions:
Reporting KU involvement in published RRs is uncommon and often vague. Future research should explore barriers and facilitators for KU involvement and its reporting in RRs. Guidance regarding reporting on KU involvement in RRs is needed.
More Related Videos
06:26Meta-analysis of Voxel-Based Neuroimaging Studies using Seed-based d Mapping with Permutation of Subject Images SDM-PSI
Published on: November 27, 2019
05:47Evidence-based Knowledge Synthesis and Hypothesis Validation: Navigating Biomedical Knowledge Bases via Explainable AI and Agentic Systems
Published on: June 13, 2025
Related Concept Videos
Cross-Sectional Research
Finding Volume Using Cross-Sectional Area
Profile Leveling and Cross Sections
Spinal Cord: Cross-sectional Anatomy
Gray Matter and its Components
Central to the gray matter is...
Review and Preview
Percentiles are a type of fractile that partition data into...
Review and Preview