Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews

By Rebecca Ganann, Donna Ciliska, H. Thomas. Implementation science : IS, 2010

721 citations recorded by the source corpus.

BackgroundPolicy makers and others often require synthesis of knowledge in an area within six months or less. Traditional systematic reviews typically take at least 12 months to conduct. Rapid reviews streamline traditional systematic review methods in order to synthesize evidence within a shortened timeframe. There is great variation in the process of conducting rapid reviews. This review sought to examine methods used for rapid reviews, as well as implications of methodological streamlining in terms of rigour, bias, and results.MethodsA comprehensive search strategy--including five electronic databases, grey literature, hand searching of relevant journals, and contacting key informants--was undertaken. All titles and abstracts (n = 1,989) were reviewed independently by two reviewers. Relevance criteria included articles published between 1995 and 2009 about conducting rapid reviews or addressing comparisons of rapid reviews versus traditional reviews. Full articles were retrieved for any titles deemed relevant by either reviewer (n = 70). Data were extracted from all relevant methodological articles (n = 45) and from exemplars of rapid review methods (n = 25).ResultsRapid reviews varied from three weeks to six months; various methods for speeding up the process were employed. Some limited searching by years, databases, language, and sources beyond electronic searches. Several employed one reviewer for title and abstract reviewing, full text review, methodological quality assessment, and/or data extraction phases. Within rapid review studies, accelerating the data extraction process may lead to missing some relevant information. Biases may be introduced due to shortened timeframes for literature searching, article retrieval, and appraisal.ConclusionsThis review examined the continuum between diverse rapid review methods and traditional systematic reviews. It also examines potential implications of streamlined review methods. More of these rapid reviews need to be published in the peer-reviewed literature with an emphasis on articulating methods employed. While one consistent methodological approach may not be optimal or appropriate, it is important that researchers undertaking reviews within the rapid to systematic continuum provide detailed descriptions of methods used and discuss the implications of their chosen methods in terms of potential bias introduced. Further research comparing full systematic reviews with rapid reviews will enhance understanding of the limitations of these methods.

Subfields: General Health Professions, Statistics and Probability

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/70ddb1d1b343ab552c98a958efbcbe31a03f69ff

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In General Health Professions

In Statistics and Probability

Citations in the corpus

Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach (2012, background): “A growing number of organizations, across various jurisdictions and countries, appear to be experimenting with this approach [3].”
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews (2020, neutral): “However, the methodological rigor and process that makes SR evidence trustworthy often take one to 2 years to complete [1 e 4] and limit their utility to meet the time-sensitive needs of stakeholders.”
CDC guideline for prescribing opioids for chronic pain (2016, background): “Rapid reviews are used when there is a need to streamline the systematic review process to obtain evidence in a short time frame (76).”
Dashboards for improving patient care: Review of the literature (2015, neutral): “8 screening processes) to produce overviews of evidence in shorter time frames [26].”
Rapid Systematic Review: The Impact of Social Isolation and Loneliness on the Mental Health of Children and Adolescents in the Context of COVID-19 (2020, methodology): “9,10 It uses “abbreviated” systematic review methodology, including limiting search criteria, faster data extraction, and using narrative synthesis methods.(11,12)”
A scoping review of rapid review methods (2015, background): “Since two systematic reviews have already been published on rapid reviews [6, 7], we limited our search from 2008 until May 2013.”
Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions (2011, positive): “More recently, calls have been made for ‘rapid reviews’ to provide decision-makers with the evidence they need in a shorter time frame, but the possible limitations of such ‘rapid reviews’, compared to full systematic reviews, require further research [2].”
The Uncertainty of Innovation: A Systematic Review of the Literature (2011, background): “The sensitivity and precision of search terms is crucial for the validity and reliability of a systematic literature review (Ganann et al. 2010).”