Table 6 Guidance provided in development papers on rapid reviews
Author, year | Overall approach to the rapid review | Question | Literature search | Screening | Data abstraction | Risk of bias | Synthesis | Dissemination/knowledge translation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Best, 1997 | Use a fixed structure | Identified by purchasers and providers | Electronic databases and grey literature | Not reported | Limit the outcomes to cost-effectiveness | Not reported | Descriptive. Focus on benefits/disbenefits and costs/savings | Report provided to the committee who meets every 3Â months to make decisions |
Abrami, 2010 | Use of a larger staff to conduct the review in a timelier manner. Use of tools to make the process more efficient | Specific research question | Updating or expanding an existing review | Use strict inclusion criteria. Only screen a random sample of results. Bypassing steps that check for inter-rater agreement | Not reported | Not reported | Descriptive only. Use of vote counting. Charting results only | Not reported |
Bambra, 2010 | Not reported | Limited scope | Rapid search of the literature to limited key words and databases. Restrict searches by date, accessibility, and policy relevance | Not reported | Not reported | Appraise evidence | Develop key recommendations | Refine key recommendations using a Delphi approach with end-users |
Jahangirian, 2011 | Incremental and iterative | Not reported | Forward citation searching and backward citation searchinga | 3-stage screening phase (filtering, sampling, and sifting) | Use graphical tools that allow the charting of the literature | Not reported | Not reported | Not reported |
Khangura, 2012 | Work closely with end-users using integrated knowledge translation | 1–2 hours to refine question with policy-makers. Iterative process | Targeted literature searches. Includes published and unpublished literature. Focus inclusion on systematic reviews | Limited to English. Liberal acceleratedb | Not reported | Use the level of evidence based on a modified framework established by the Cochrane Musculoskeletal Group | Descriptive synthesis only. Concise report; 1-page brief | Collaborative approach. Use feedback on previous products to improve future products |
Thigpen, 2012 | Work closely with end-users using integrated knowledge translation | Consult with end-user to decide on the topic | Internal and external experts engaged to focus literature search | Researchers and end-users engaged in establishing relevance | Focus on common components and key messages | Not reported | Distill the research literature | Interpretation guided by end-users to ensure relevance, understanding, and actionable knowledge. Use of 2–4-paged user-friendly briefs |
Thomas, 2013 | Require an experienced team in systematic reviews to conduct the rapid reviews. Prioritize rapid reviews for urgent decisions | Clearly defined. Limited scope. Limiting stakeholder involvement to provide insight into the question and protocol | Targeted searches of key databases | Limiting inclusion to English papers. Only one person screens the literature results and another screens random sample or list of excludes | Mapping study characteristics. Focusing abstraction on key interventions and specific study designs | Selecting key elements of quality appraisal tools and only appraising these | Use a framework synthesis | Not reported |