Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Rapid reviews (RRs) have become a pragmatic alternative to systematic reviews (SRs) because they can provide decision-makers timely answers to urgent health system questions. Savings in resources is usually achieved by implementing one or more shortcuts in the conduct of the review. However, there is currently no consensus around the definition of a RR.
Objectives: The aim of this work was to perform a systematic scoping review to identify RR definitions used in published RRs (between 2017-2018) and to perform a thematic analysis of these definitions to allow for the creation of a preliminary definition to be further discussed with the SR and RR community.
Methods: An Information Specialist developed a search strategy in consultation with the review team, which was peer-reviewed. Study selection was performed in two stages: titles and abstracts were screened using the liberal accelerated method and full-text screening was performed independently, in duplicate. Data charting included copying the definition of a RR as stated in the included reviews, and the reference(s) (if applicable). Definitions from RRs were supplemented with RR definitions from RR methods papers. Definitions were then thematically analyzed and graphically presented (e.g., radar chart).
Results: The search resulted in 2657 unique records, 422 evaluated at full-text, and 216 RRs included. A total of 158 RRs provided a definition, and the top four articles referenced were Khangura 2012 (n=54), Ganann 2010 (n=42), Tricco 2015 (n=21) and Grant 2009 (n=18). Including the definitions retrieved from the 90 RR methods papers identified in another scoping review, 204 definitions were thematically analyzed and mapped to eight key themes: compare/contrast to a full traditional SR (n=139), variation in methods shortcuts (n=112), accelerated/rapid process or approach (n=99), resource efficiency rationale (n=99), stakeholder rationale (n=72), systematic approach (n=50), focus/depth/breadth of scope (n=35), and bias/limitations (n=19) (Figure 1).
Conclusions: Eight key themes were identified and a preliminary definition of a RR proposed. This suggested definition, with additional caveats, can help guide discussions with the SR community to develop a consensus definition. This definition will also serve to inform discussions within Cochrane regarding possible future implementation of RRs. Failure to achieve consensus on the definition or at least a minimum set of criteria of a RR will be a barrier to moving the science forward in this field.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Although there was no direct patient or consumer involvement, the results from this scoping review aim to provide the first step in achieving consensus around a definition of a RR. This should provide developers of RRs and stakeholders needed information to RR producers to get high-quality information to those who need it in an expedited timeline.
Objectives: The aim of this work was to perform a systematic scoping review to identify RR definitions used in published RRs (between 2017-2018) and to perform a thematic analysis of these definitions to allow for the creation of a preliminary definition to be further discussed with the SR and RR community.
Methods: An Information Specialist developed a search strategy in consultation with the review team, which was peer-reviewed. Study selection was performed in two stages: titles and abstracts were screened using the liberal accelerated method and full-text screening was performed independently, in duplicate. Data charting included copying the definition of a RR as stated in the included reviews, and the reference(s) (if applicable). Definitions from RRs were supplemented with RR definitions from RR methods papers. Definitions were then thematically analyzed and graphically presented (e.g., radar chart).
Results: The search resulted in 2657 unique records, 422 evaluated at full-text, and 216 RRs included. A total of 158 RRs provided a definition, and the top four articles referenced were Khangura 2012 (n=54), Ganann 2010 (n=42), Tricco 2015 (n=21) and Grant 2009 (n=18). Including the definitions retrieved from the 90 RR methods papers identified in another scoping review, 204 definitions were thematically analyzed and mapped to eight key themes: compare/contrast to a full traditional SR (n=139), variation in methods shortcuts (n=112), accelerated/rapid process or approach (n=99), resource efficiency rationale (n=99), stakeholder rationale (n=72), systematic approach (n=50), focus/depth/breadth of scope (n=35), and bias/limitations (n=19) (Figure 1).
Conclusions: Eight key themes were identified and a preliminary definition of a RR proposed. This suggested definition, with additional caveats, can help guide discussions with the SR community to develop a consensus definition. This definition will also serve to inform discussions within Cochrane regarding possible future implementation of RRs. Failure to achieve consensus on the definition or at least a minimum set of criteria of a RR will be a barrier to moving the science forward in this field.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: Although there was no direct patient or consumer involvement, the results from this scoping review aim to provide the first step in achieving consensus around a definition of a RR. This should provide developers of RRs and stakeholders needed information to RR producers to get high-quality information to those who need it in an expedited timeline.