Abstract
BackgroundRapid 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.MethodsA 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.ResultsA 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.ConclusionsRR 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.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
Highlights
Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results
Featherstone et al Systematic Reviews (2015) 4:50. This analysis of review articles about RRs was conducted as part of a larger evaluation of RR products undertaken by the rapid reviews workgroup of the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality’s Evidencebased Practice Centers (EPC) Program [5]
To yield evidence that will inform decisions by systematic reviewers to diversify their products by offering RRs, or to adopt efficiencies that may be demonstrated by RRs, the EPC adopted the following questions to guide their investigation: 1. What are the definitions and characteristics of rapid review products produced by key organizations?
Summary
Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); 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. Rapid review (RR) products are intended to synthesize available evidence and meet the time constraints of healthcare decision-makers [1]. The workgroup investigated existing RR products and their methods of production, guidance for RR producers, and any empirical evidence regarding the validity of RRs compared with standard SRs. To yield evidence that will inform decisions by systematic reviewers to diversify their products by offering RRs, or to adopt efficiencies that may be demonstrated by RRs, the EPC adopted the following questions to guide their investigation: 1. What methodological guidance exists for the conduct of rapid reviews? What trade-offs are incurred with different methodological approaches?
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a callDisclaimer: All third-party content on this website/platform is and will remain the property of their respective owners and is provided on "as is" basis without any warranties, express or implied. Use of third-party content does not indicate any affiliation, sponsorship with or endorsement by them. Any references to third-party content is to identify the corresponding services and shall be considered fair use under The CopyrightLaw.
