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

• Author(s) / Creator(s)

  • Mitchell, Matthew D.
  • Guise, Jeanne-Marie
  • Robinson, Karen A.
  • Umscheid, Craig A.
  • Dryden, Donna M.
  • Paynter, Robin A.
  • Featherstone, Robin M.
  • Foisy, Michelle
  • Hartling, Lisa

• 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 timeframes 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

  2015-05-04

• Subjects / Keywords

  • Health technology assessment
  • Evidence-based practice
  • Rapid review
  • Systematic reviews
  • Review literature as topic
  • Knowledge synthesis

• Type of Item

  Article (Published)

• DOI

  https://doi.org/10.7939/R3N58CM3K

• License

  This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver (http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.