The epidemic of new crown pneumonia has spawned policy makers' comprehensive requirements for scientific evidence，It also reflects the importance of timely evidence review。People start to evaluate the way to comprehensively comprehensively carry out evidence，Especially fast evidence review。The reporter of this newspaper is the characteristics of fast evidence review、Application status and deficiency issues interviewed foreign scholars。

　bet365 Play online games

Now，A large number of scientific research results are published every day，Especially after the new crown pneumonia epidemic，Related research results are endless。According to the "Nature" magazine report，Global scientific researchers in 2020 not only published more than 100,000 papers on the theme of new crown pneumonia epidemic，And the papers of other scientific themes have also increased significantly。Whether it is researchers or readers，The key developments in the relevant discipline field are not easy。Therefore，System summarizes this powerful evidence summary and evaluation method into the public view。

System summary refers to the problem that is defined for a certain definition，Systemic、Copy、Clear and transparent method to identify、Filter、Evaluate all related studies，Data in the study of the scope of the scope of the scope of the review，Then get comprehensive conclusions。Thanks to the strictness and transparency of the method，System review bet365 live casino games can reduce bias and random errors，Maximum output reasonable and reliable evidence。

But the system review is a dense activity of scientific research resources。Scholars statistics，Detailed system review for a scientific theme requires 6-24 months，It also takes 15 months on average，Few policy makers can wait so long，What they need is to make decisions quickly according to scientific evidence。Therefore，How to balance evidence quality and speed of review has become a question that scientific researchers and policy makers are concerned。

　　Settlement Settlement System for Fast Evidence Review

According to the British government and college cooperation project "Academic Policy Participation Capability" independent consultant Jonathan Breckon, Introduction，One of the methods to catch up with the speed of new research is dynamic real -time evidence review。For example，Decision and Practice Education Information Coordination Center in the Institute of Education of the University of London, the University of London, the Institute of Education Research on the Institute of Education of the University of London, the "System Real -time Map of Social Science Research Evidence related to the epidemic of new crown pneumonia"，Regular updates on the last Friday of each month，It aims to help people understand and cope with the social impact brought about by the epidemic of the new crown pneumonia。

Another method is the map gap map，It is characterized by the distribution of system summary and influence evaluation intuitively，Show the quality of the scientific evidence on a certain problem and whether there is a research blank。Evidence gap in map coverage may be very bet365 live casino games large，For example，There is an evidence gap in the prevention of children's violence research. The map covers 1569 influence evaluation、302 process evaluation、268 system review。

The advantage of the gap between the evidence is clearly showing what kind of evidence is currently displayed、What kind of evidence is missing，But you still need to use other tools to extract the meaning from the evidence。Quick evidence review can be used as a "acceleration version" as a review of traditional or standard systems。This summary began in the 1960s，It became popular in the first ten years of the 21st century，The peak of the new crown pneumonia epidemic。It emerges in the field of medicine and health policy，But more and more applied in the field of social policy。

Professor Philip Moons, a professor at the Department of Public Health and Primary Health Care of the University of Lunen, Belgium、Professor Eva Goossens, Professor Eva Goossens of Nursing and Medical Assistance at the University of Belgium and Professor David (David R. Thompson mentioned in the article "Fast Judging: Accelerating the Prosperity of the Review Process" mentioned some differences between fast evidence review and traditional system summary。

Quick evidence review seeks existing evidence about a certain issue within a short period of time，Search range is subject to time restrictions，The depth and details provided by provided by less than traditional systems。The traditional system reviews all evidence of a comprehensive and detailed assessment of a certain issue，The search range is wider，The information provided is richer and more detailed。Traditional system review not only analyzes and integrates bet365 best casino games the best evidence，Policy suggestions，It is also necessary，Make suggestions on the direction and focus of future research。Quick evidence review commonly used text plus forms，Summary of traditional systems is mainly text。other，The commissioner of the quick evidence review often interacts closely with the judge，The purpose of the review is to be used as a reference for decision -making。

Quick evidence review has some commonly used speed -up methods or "shortcuts"，Including a very clear limited question、The breadth of the control problem、Reduce the scope of research related research, etc.。

　　Please be able to sacrifice quality

Murns told this reporter，When policy makers need to quickly make decisions based on scientific evidence，Quick evidence review can play an important role，And the results obtained from the review are often more time -consuming than the traditional system review。None of the policy areas are particularly applicable or not applicable to fast evidence review，Everything depends on the use of evidence and the urgency of the use of evidence。Quick evidence review is now increasingly adopted by policy makers。，Articles involving fast evidence review have increased significantly since 2015。2015-2019，This type of article has increased from nearly 50 articles to more than 100 articles each year，Ascended to nearly 400 articles in 2020。After the epidemic of new crown pneumonia，Doctor、Policy maker and medical institution managers' demand for fast evidence review surge。Murnes believes，The application potential of fast evidence review is considerable，Topics that has nothing to do with the epidemic of new crown pneumonia，Quick bet365 live casino games evidence review will also be more commonly used。

Andrea Trico, deputy professor of the University of Toronto, Dalana Lana School of Public Health, told this reporter，Quick evidence review is suitable for any field that exists in a certain number of research，Not applicable to a new strange topic。For example，Organizing fast evidence review may not be very useful when the unseen disease that has not seen before appeared，Because the information is too little，Insufficient evidence of quality pass。Since the epidemic in the new crown pneumonia，Quick evidence review is quickly widely used，It is expected to help evidence -based decisions at a wider level in the future，Promoting research on non -political issues，Promote the public's understanding of science。To achieve the same speed and quality，Triko recommends the use of artificial intelligence technology to assist fast evidence review，Let the research objects participate in the process of fast evidence review，Comparison analysis of the same problem analysis of fast evidence review and traditional system summary results。

Murnes said，Research indicates，Similar conclusions and conclusions of fast evidence review and traditional system summary，But people still need to pay attention to the limitations and potential traps of fast evidence review。Due to consensus、Unified fast evidence review methodology has not yet been established，Many fast evidence review did not clearly describe your methodology，This makes the research search process cannot be copied，The difference in the conclusion of the income is difficult to explain。"Shortcut" may also cause errors，This is the negative Bet365 lotto review impact of the systematic review。Professor Sandy Oliver, Professor of Public Policy at the University of London, UK, reminded，Quick Evidence Review "Not to meet the requirements of strictness，Not meets the time requirements ";，The risk of application fast evidence review may be higher，Because such problems are often more complicated、Strong controversial，and related research a variety of various studies。

Murnes emphasized，No matter what method is used，Quick evidence review must follow the core principles of traditional system review，Its systematic cannot be discounted。When the method of fast evidence review deviation method is specified，It must be given a clear and detailed instructions。"Fast" does not mean that hasty and inferiority，Fast evidence review cannot ignore or intentionally bypass the quality assurance link，It is not advisable to pursue the speed at the expense of scientific quality。And，Evaluate the necessity of fast evidence review is important。Quick evidence review is mainly suitable for urgent need for evidence -based decision -making，instead of becoming a "gold standard"，The complete system review is still the most universal。Under the circumstances where the accuracy of the conclusion is strict，Traditional system review is still the best choice。Breyan talks，The speed and quality of balanced evidence review are a challenge，Sharing experience and insights help researchers to better achieve balance。Current，Many fast evidence review work is carried out in a state of "isolation"，Scholars and policy makers should be more across disciplines、Cross -domain bet365 Play online games knowledge exchange process continues to improve fast evidence review。