Brief · Template
Evidence Review.
LiveEvidence ReviewGet a rapid review of the published evidence on one question: the question stated as a PICO, the main studies tabulated with effect and risk of bias, the certainty rated outcome by outcome, and what the evidence does not answer.
Add it to your library to reuse from New → From template. Edit the saved copy in your library on the service form.
When to use it
You need to know what the published evidence shows on one question, how certain it is, and what remains open, and the decision cannot wait for a full systematic review.
Who it is for. Leads who must answer an evidence question quickly: market access, HEOR, medical affairs, clinical operations, safety and regulatory leads preparing a discussion, a dossier or a design choice.
Why a short review must say what it left out
A rapid review streamlines the steps of a systematic review, for example a narrower search or one reviewer. That is a legitimate way to answer a question on time, but only if the review says what was shortened and rates how certain the result is. This template states the shortcuts, rates certainty for each outcome with a fixed four-word vocabulary, and never computes an effect the studies did not report.1,6
What you get
The question and the bottom line. The question as a PICO (population, intervention, comparison, outcome), one sentence on what the evidence shows, the overall certainty, and the size of the evidence base with the search date.1
The evidence, study by study. A table of five to twelve studies with design, population, comparator, outcome, effect with its interval exactly as reported, and risk of bias. A missing interval is marked as a gap and never computed.2,3
What it shows, outcome by outcome. The direction and size of the effect, the number of studies behind it and how consistent they are. A bar chart appears only when three outcomes share a unit and are sourced.
How strong it is. The certainty for each outcome as high, moderate, low or very low, with the reason it was lowered, and the single largest threat to the bottom line. Ratings are labeled analyst judgment, because no formal GRADE panel is run.1
How it was found, where studies disagree, where the evidence is thin. At Comprehensive length: the sources and the shortcuts, the studies that diverge and why, and a matrix of interventions against outcomes with study counts.4
What the evidence does not answer. The decision question that remains open, what evidence would settle it, and a recommendation for a full literature review if completeness matters.
What is in it, by length
| Section | Brief | Standard | Comprehensive |
|---|---|---|---|
| The question and the bottom lineThe PICO, the answer and the certainty | – | ● | ● |
| How the evidence was foundWhat was searched and what was shortened | – | – | ● |
| The evidenceThe studies, with effect and risk of bias | – | ● | ● |
| What it showsThe effect on each outcome | – | ● | ● |
| How strong it isThe certainty for each outcome and why | – | ● | ● |
| Where studies disagreeWhy results differ | – | – | ● |
| Where the evidence is thinWhich populations, comparators or outcomes are missing | – | – | ● |
| What the evidence does not answerThe open decision question | – | ● | ● |
A Standard review reads in about 1,300 words. A Comprehensive review reads in about five. Brief is not offered for an Evidence Review.
Choosing a length
Choose Standard for most questions. Choose Comprehensive when the studies disagree, or when the reader needs to see how the evidence was found and where it is thin.
The standards and practice behind it
The structure and the checks come from published methods for evidence synthesis. These are the references we drew on and what we took from each. None of their authors has reviewed the template.
| What we took | From | Where it shows |
|---|---|---|
| Rate certainty for each outcome as high, moderate, low or very low, lowering it for risk of bias, inconsistency, indirectness, imprecision and publication bias | The GRADE approach, as set out in the Cochrane Handbook, chapter 141 | How strong it is: a certainty and a reason for each outcome |
| Judge bias in randomized trials as low, some concerns or high | The RoB 2 tool (Sterne and colleagues, BMJ, 2019)2 | The risk of bias column in the evidence table |
| Judge bias in non-randomized studies of interventions with a separate tool and scale | ROBINS-I (Sterne and colleagues, BMJ, 2016)3 | The risk of bias column, using the ROBINS-I scale for cohort studies |
| Report how many records were identified, screened, excluded and included | The PRISMA 2020 statement (Page and colleagues, BMJ, 2021)4 | A flow of counts, drawn only when the search returns them |
| Tier digital health technologies by function and risk and expect proportionate evidence | The NICE Evidence Standards Framework for digital health technologies5 | Context for reviews of digital therapeutics and screening software |
| Say which review steps were streamlined | Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group guidance (Garritty and colleagues, 2021)6 | The label as a rapid review and the list of shortcuts |
What it will not do
It is not a systematic review. It uses a bounded search, says so, and recommends a full literature review when completeness matters.
It does not pool studies into a new estimate. It reports the effects the studies reported.
It does not compute a missing interval or plot a missing effect as zero. Both are marked as gaps.
References
- [1] Schünemann, H. J. et al. Chapter 14: Completing ‘Summary of findings’ tables and grading the certainty of the evidence. In: Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Read in the template review of 8 October 2026: four certainty levels, five domains that lower certainty, and the summary-of-findings table.
- [2] Sterne, J. A. C. et al. RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials. BMJ, 2019;366:l4898. The judgments Low, Some concerns and High were confirmed on the Cochrane Methods page; the paper was not read.
- [3] Sterne, J. A. C. et al. ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ, 2016;355:i4919. Seven domains and the scale Low, Moderate, Serious, Critical or No information, as summarized in search results; the paper was not read.
- [4] Page, M. J. et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ, 2021;372:n71. Known from the citation and teaching pages; the statement was not read.
- [5] National Institute for Health and Care Excellence. Evidence standards framework (ESF) for digital health technologies. Functional tiers A, B and C by increasing risk, as given in NICE pages found by search; the framework was not read in full.
- [6] Garritty, C. et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 2021;130:13–22. Known from search results. The guidance describes rapid reviews as streamlining systematic review steps; claims about concordance with full reviews were not confirmed and are not relied on.
Links checked 9 October 2026
These are the sources the template drew on. None of their authors or issuers has reviewed it.
About the Brief service
A Brief is a written answer from one specialist, at the depth you asked for. It arrives with its sources, and it closes by saying plainly what would change the conclusion. Nothing is hidden behind a summary, and anything the expert could not source is marked as a gap rather than filled in.
Use cases for the Evidence Review
7 ready-to-run use cases. Each opens its own page with the question, the specialists, the standards and the references.
To edit a saved template, open New → Brief → From template, or the library rail on the service form.