The relationship between the type of rapid reviews and quality: in the background of COVID-19

Article type
Authors
Wang Z1, Zhou Q2, Shi Q2, Xun Y3, Zhao S4, Chen Y5
1Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou
2The First School of Clinical Medicine, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou
3Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University
4School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, Lanzhou
5Evidence-Based Medicine Center, School of Basic Medical Sciences, Lanzhou University; WHO Collaborating Centre for Guideline Implementation and Knowledge Translation; Chinese GRADE Center; Cochrane China Network, Lanzhou
Abstract
Background:
In a public health emergency, like the outbreak of COVID-19, rapid reviews (RR) have emerged as a streamlined, instead of systematic review, approach to synthesizing evidence quickly, typically for the purpose of helping decision-makers in health-care settings to make decisions expeditiously. According to WHO hand book, there have four types of RR, like traditional systematic review (conducted rapidly), rapid review of systematic review, rapid review of systematic reviews plus primary studies and rapid review of primary studies only. It is important to know the quality of the different type of rapid reviews for researchers so as to choose the best fits rapid review in public health emergency.
Objectives:
To evaluate the quality of different type of rapid reviews of COVID-19
Methods:
We searched the rapid reviews of COVID-19 in electronic databases (including PubMed, Embase, Web of Science, Cochrane library) until April, 6 2020. Google Scholar and the preprint servers were also searched for supplement. Two researchers independently screened the records and extracted data, disagreements were resolved through discussion or consulting a third researcher. Non-COVID-19 rapid reviews were excluded. Assessment of Multiple Systematic Reviews (AMSTAR) tool and Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta Analyses (PRISMA) tool were used to assess the methodology and reporting quality of the included rapid reviews.
Results:
The result will be presented at the meeting.
Conclusions:
The result will be presented at the meeting.
Patient or healthcare consumer involvement: None