Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Interest in reliable and quick evidence syntheses to support decision making in health care has sparked development of rapid reviews, yet no taxonomy of these products exists and there is limited guidance for producers.
Objectives: To understand and describe practices of conducting rapid reviews.
Methods: Perform literature search and interviews with producers of rapid reviews to catalog and synthesize methods used, existing empiric evidence, and guidance, and to establish a taxonomy for rapid products. In addition, we are currently interviewing end-users of evidence syntheses to discover how rapid reviews are perceived in comparison with standard systematic reviews, and compiling emerging themes.
Results: We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations in five countries (production time five minutes to eight months). Almost all products used four approaches to save time: narrowed scope, restricted searching, screening and data abstraction by a single reviewer, and limited synthesis. Faster products generally employed more restrictions. Rapid products fell into four categories: Rapid Reviews, Rapid Responses, Evidence Inventories, and Automated Processes. Methods varied by category, with some products (Inventories) avoiding synthesis completely and others (Rapid Reviews) including syntheses comparable to standard systematic reviews. Rapid products are produced in close consultation with the end-user to support specific decisions. This allows the selection of methods that best fit the decision and timeframe. Little empiric evidence has compared rapid and systematic reviews.
Conclusions: Rapid reviews have tremendous methodological variation, but categorization based on timeframe or type of synthesis reveals patterns. Reviewers work with end-users to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs. Our finding of the important role and interaction with end-users to develop a fit-for-purpose product has led to follow-up work. Interviews with end-users will provide insight into why systematic reviews are trusted and valued, and the acceptability and usability of rapid products.
Objectives: To understand and describe practices of conducting rapid reviews.
Methods: Perform literature search and interviews with producers of rapid reviews to catalog and synthesize methods used, existing empiric evidence, and guidance, and to establish a taxonomy for rapid products. In addition, we are currently interviewing end-users of evidence syntheses to discover how rapid reviews are perceived in comparison with standard systematic reviews, and compiling emerging themes.
Results: We identified 36 rapid products from 20 organizations in five countries (production time five minutes to eight months). Almost all products used four approaches to save time: narrowed scope, restricted searching, screening and data abstraction by a single reviewer, and limited synthesis. Faster products generally employed more restrictions. Rapid products fell into four categories: Rapid Reviews, Rapid Responses, Evidence Inventories, and Automated Processes. Methods varied by category, with some products (Inventories) avoiding synthesis completely and others (Rapid Reviews) including syntheses comparable to standard systematic reviews. Rapid products are produced in close consultation with the end-user to support specific decisions. This allows the selection of methods that best fit the decision and timeframe. Little empiric evidence has compared rapid and systematic reviews.
Conclusions: Rapid reviews have tremendous methodological variation, but categorization based on timeframe or type of synthesis reveals patterns. Reviewers work with end-users to meet time-sensitive decision-making needs. Our finding of the important role and interaction with end-users to develop a fit-for-purpose product has led to follow-up work. Interviews with end-users will provide insight into why systematic reviews are trusted and valued, and the acceptability and usability of rapid products.