Skip to main content

Table 6 Guidance provided in development papers on rapid reviews

From: A scoping review of rapid review methods

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 3 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 Includes published and unpublished literature.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
  1. aForward citation searching, searching for papers that cite the included studies; backward citation searching, scanning the references of the included studies; bLiberal accelerated, having a second reviewer screen the list of excluded studies.