ERA

Download the full-sized PDF of Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: an analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviewsDownload the full-sized PDF

Analytics

Share

Permanent link (DOI): https://doi.org/10.7939/R3NV99F1T

Download

Export to: EndNote  |  Zotero  |  Mendeley

Communities

This file is in the following communities:

Medicine and Dentistry, Faculty of

Collections

This file is in the following collections:

Alberta Research Centre for Health Evidence (ARCHE)

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

Descriptions

Author or creator
Featherstone, Robin
Dryden, Donna
Foisy, Michelle
Guise, Jeanne-Marie
Mitchell, Matthew
Paynter, Robin
Robinson, Karen
Umscheid, Craig
Hartling, Lisa
Additional contributors
Subject/Keyword
Rapid review
Review literature as topic
Health technology assessment
Systematic review
Knowledge synthesis
Evidence-based practice
Type of item
Journal Article (Published)
Language
English
Place
Time
Description
Background: Rapid 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. Methods: A 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. Results: A cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying time frames to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods. Conclusions: RR 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.
Date created
2016
DOI
doi:10.7939/R3NV99F1T
License information
Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs 4.0 International
Rights

Citation for previous publication

Source

Link to related item

File Details

Date Uploaded
Date Modified
2016-10-04T20:10:18.563+00:00
Audit Status
Audits have not yet been run on this file.
Characterization
File format: pdf (PDF/A)
Mime type: application/pdf
File size: 496313
Last modified: 2016:10:04 14:10:25-06:00
Filename: Featherstone_SystematicReviews_2015.pdf
Original checksum: d900a9dc970e967186c976d8b48c498b
Copyright note: © 2015 Featherstone et al.; licensee BioMed Central.
Activity of users you follow
User Activity Date