Questions
1. What makes rapid reviews rapid?
2. Do published rapid reviews follow recognised rapid review frameworks?
3. Is there interest in carrying out further methodological research in this area?
“rapid review*”.ti,ab
2005 – Current
MEDLINE
188 included at
title/abstract
69Excluded at
title/abstract257(after
removal of duplicates)
21 Methodology papers
83 screened
so far
7Excluded
55Rapid
reviews
Rapid review process
Findings so far…Year of publication:
2005-2009 (0%)
2010-2014 (26%)
2015-2017 (84%)
Type of paper:
Rapid review only (81%)
Rapid review combined with other methods (19%)
Area of review:
Clinical (38%)
Public Health (45%)
Health services (9%)
Other (8%)
Commissioner:
Unknown (31%)
Stated (69%)
Findings so far…
Number of databases searched:
◦ 1-18
◦ Median of 4
Data synthesis:
◦ Narrative review (97%)
◦ Meta-analysis (0)
◦ Typology (3%)
◦ Other (0%)
Time taken to complete the review:
◦ 3 months or less (7%)
◦ 4 to 6 months (22%)
◦ 7 to 12 months (7%)
◦ More than 12 months (7%)
◦ Not reported (57%)
What was rapid about the reviews?
Unclear (66%)
Limiting the number of databases searched (62%)
Limiting inclusion criteria by date (40%)
Limiting inclusion by language (29%)
Only having one review screen and/or quality assess studies (26%)
Not conducting RoB/ quality assessment (14%)
Findings (reviews of reviews)
“Association between
length of publication and
completion time and the
number of adequately
reported PRISMA or
AMSTAR items”
“No difference in
AMSTAR item
compliance overall”
Findings (case studies)
“Rapid review
methods need to
be chosen to meet
both the nature of
the evidence base
of a review”
Findings (consensus/discussion)
“Rapid reviews aim to
meet the requirements and timelines of a
decision maker and should be conducted in
less time than a systematic review”
“They should use the most rigorous
methods that the delivery time frame
will allow”
“Maintains that rapid reviews should be the exception and
not the rule ”
Interactive Workshop
1.What makes a rapid review rapid?
2.When is it appropriate/ not appropriate
to do a rapid review?
3.Is it feasible to have a one size fits all,
single rapid review guideline?