Abstract
BackgroundDecision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. To save time, personnel, and financial resources, rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies.MethodsWe used a convenience sample of three ongoing Cochrane reviews as reference standards. Two reviews addressed oncological topics and one addressed a public health topic. For each of the three topics, three reviewers screened the literature independently. Our primary outcome was the change in conclusions between the rapid reviews and the respective Cochrane reviews. In case the rapid approach missed studies, we recalculated the meta-analyses for the main outcomes and asked Cochrane review authors if the new body of evidence would change their original conclusion compared with the reference standards. Additionally, we assessed the sensitivity of the rapid review approach compared with the results of the original Cochrane reviews.ResultsFor the two oncological topics (case studies 1 and 2), the three rapid reviews each yielded the same conclusions as the Cochrane reviews. However, the authors would have had less certainty about their conclusion in case study 2. For case study 3, the public health topic, only one of the three rapid reviews led to the same conclusion as the Cochrane review. The other two rapid reviews provided insufficient information for the authors to draw conclusions. Using the rapid review approach, the sensitivity was 100% (3 of 3) for case study 1. For case study 2, the three rapid reviews identified 40% (4 of 10), 50% (5 of 10), and 60% (6 of 10) of the included studies, respectively; for case study 3, the respective numbers were 38% (8 of 21), 43% (9 of 21), and 48% (10 of 21).ConclusionsWithin the limitations of these case studies, a rapid review approach that combines abbreviated literature searches with single-reviewer screening may be feasible for focused clinical questions. For complex public health topics, sensitivity seems to be insufficient.
Highlights
Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions
Two of these reviews addressed the pharmacological treatments of malignant diseases; the third review was on a public health policy topic
Changes in conclusions Our primary question of interest was whether the Cochrane authors would have drawn the same or different conclusions had they relied on a rapid review instead of the Cochrane review
Summary
Decision-makers increasingly request rapid answers to clinical or public health questions. We aimed to explore the validity of a rapid review approach that combines a substantially abbreviated literature search with a single-reviewer screening of abstracts and full texts using three case studies. Rapid reviews streamline the methodological steps of the systematic review process to provide quicker answers to decision-makers’ relevant questions and save personnel and financial resources. Two stages of the systematic review process that are often subject to methodological shortcuts in rapid reviews are literature searches and the screening of abstracts and full texts [9]. These two steps are labor-intensive and closely related. The authors proposed that their approach could be used as an add-on to preliminary searches for the validation of search strategies or as a routine component in any systematic search [11]
Sign-in/Register to view highlights & summary Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Free) 
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 call
