Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews

Abstract

BackgroundRapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs.MethodsA systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented.ResultsA cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods.ConclusionsRR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Systematic Reviews for Occupational Safety and Health Questions: Resources for Evidence Synthesis

“…The existing literature has repeatedly pointed to the lack of established rapid review methods (Featherstone et al, 2015;Khangura et al, 2012;and Polisena et al, 2015). More methodological guidance is expected to be published by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group.…”

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

“…Notwithstanding methodological constraints, rapid reviews should endeavour to be transparent, systematic and reproducible. 4 Most Rapid Reviews do not publish a protocol. 3 However, the recent establishment of a Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group highlights the need to develop methods that minimise bias despite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.…”

“…[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.…”

“…Notwithstanding methodological constraints, rapid reviews should endeavour to be transparent, systematic and reproducible. 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. Outlining the objectives and methodology a priori will further improve the transparency and quality of the methods used to frame the review questions, help reduce bias arising from the rapid review study design, and enhance the reproducibility of the results.…”

“…Notwithstanding methodological constraints, rapid reviews should endeavour to be transparent, systematic and reproducible. 4 Most Rapid Reviews do not publish a protocol.…”