A scoping review of rapid review methods

Abstract

BackgroundRapid reviews are a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner. Although numerous centers are conducting rapid reviews internationally, few studies have examined the methodological characteristics of rapid reviews. We aimed to examine articles, books, and reports that evaluated, compared, used or described rapid reviews or methods through a scoping review.MethodsMEDLINE, EMBASE, the Cochrane Library, internet websites of rapid review producers, and reference lists were searched to identify articles for inclusion. Two reviewers independently screened literature search results and abstracted data from included studies. Descriptive analysis was conducted.ResultsWe included 100 articles plus one companion report that were published between 1997 and 2013. The studies were categorized as 84 application papers, seven development papers, six impact papers, and four comparison papers (one was included in two categories). The rapid reviews were conducted between 1 and 12 months, predominantly in Europe (58 %) and North America (20 %). The included studies failed to report 6 % to 73 % of the specific systematic review steps examined. Fifty unique rapid review methods were identified; 16 methods occurred more than once. Streamlined methods that were used in the 82 rapid reviews included limiting the literature search to published literature (24 %) or one database (2 %), limiting inclusion criteria by date (68 %) or language (49 %), having one person screen and another verify or screen excluded studies (6 %), having one person abstract data and another verify (23 %), not conducting risk of bias/quality appraisal (7 %) or having only one reviewer conduct the quality appraisal (7 %), and presenting results as a narrative summary (78 %). Four case studies were identified that compared the results of rapid reviews to systematic reviews. Three studies found that the conclusions between rapid reviews and systematic reviews were congruent.ConclusionsNumerous rapid review approaches were identified and few were used consistently in the literature. Poor quality of reporting was observed. A prospective study comparing the results from rapid reviews to those obtained through systematic reviews is warranted.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Why Do People Choose Emergency and Urgent Care Services? A Rapid Review Utilizing a Systematic Literature Search and Narrative Synthesis

“…The short time frame and vast scope of the review subject area lends itself to rapid review methods, to efficiently identify and synthesize the most relevant evidence within the study time frame. A rapid review is defined as “a type of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a short period of time,”26 for example, by limiting inclusion by date or language and reporting results narratively 27. Rapid reviews have been described as a “streamlined alternative to standard systematic reviews”28 and a key use of this type of review is to provide summary evidence in an environment where health service delivery decisions need to be made quickly and not within the time frames of traditional reviews.…”

Protocol for a Rapid Evidence Review of Traditional and Complementary Medicine for People with Diabetes Receiving Palliative or End-of-Life Care

“…The proposed rapid review protocol addresses the time and resource constraints of the Guidelines developers; the need to develop robust methods for rapid reviews, 3 and the ad-hoc consideration of T&CM in many clinical guidelines. 28,29,37 A two-step process has been proposed that begins with a scoping review to inform the PICO questions, followed by a literature search and appraisal of the evidence for up to 20 T&CM interventions.…”

“…[1][2][3][4][5] Estimated costs of a comprehensive SR exceed USD$100,000 with an average of 1,139 hours to complete. 6 For many research teams, pragmatic decisions must be made that may compromise the accepted 'gold standard' systematic review methods used to minimise bias, which in turn impacts the validity and generalisability of the results.…”

“…4 Most Rapid Reviews do not publish a protocol. 3 However, the recent establishment of a Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group highlights the need to develop methods that minimise bias despite project constraints.…”

Filling in memory gaps through emotional communication; promising pathways in caring for persons with dementia

“…A rapid review can be defined as "a type of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a short period of time' [8]. We aimed to include papers that reported results of studies with people with dementia that investigated memory effects of communication with either an emotionally valent content (e.g.…”