Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews

An analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews

Robin M. Featherstone, Donna M. Dryden, Michelle Foisy, Jeanne-Marie Guise, Matthew D. Mitchell, Robin A. Paynter, Karen A. Robinson, Craig A. Umscheid, Lisa Hartling

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

40 Citations (Scopus)

Abstract

Background: Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented. Results: A cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods. Conclusions: RR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Article number50
JournalSystematic Reviews
Volume4
Issue number1
DOIs
StatePublished - Apr 17 2015

Fingerprint

Evidence-Based Practice
Health Services Research
Reproducibility of Results
Publications
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Evidence-based practice
  • Health technology assessment
  • Knowledge synthesis
  • Rapid review
  • Review literature as topic
  • Systematic review

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Medicine (miscellaneous)

Cite this

Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews : An analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. / Featherstone, Robin M.; Dryden, Donna M.; Foisy, Michelle; Guise, Jeanne-Marie; Mitchell, Matthew D.; Paynter, Robin A.; Robinson, Karen A.; Umscheid, Craig A.; Hartling, Lisa.

In: Systematic Reviews, Vol. 4, No. 1, 50, 17.04.2015.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Featherstone, Robin M. ; Dryden, Donna M. ; Foisy, Michelle ; Guise, Jeanne-Marie ; Mitchell, Matthew D. ; Paynter, Robin A. ; Robinson, Karen A. ; Umscheid, Craig A. ; Hartling, Lisa. / Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews : An analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews. In: Systematic Reviews. 2015 ; Vol. 4, No. 1.
@article{2525fd4399044c08bb7675df6f49757a,
title = "Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews: An analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews",
abstract = "Background: Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented. Results: A cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods. Conclusions: RR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards.",
keywords = "Evidence-based practice, Health technology assessment, Knowledge synthesis, Rapid review, Review literature as topic, Systematic review",
author = "Featherstone, {Robin M.} and Dryden, {Donna M.} and Michelle Foisy and Jeanne-Marie Guise and Mitchell, {Matthew D.} and Paynter, {Robin A.} and Robinson, {Karen A.} and Umscheid, {Craig A.} and Lisa Hartling",
year = "2015",
month = "4",
day = "17",
doi = "10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "4",
journal = "Systematic Reviews",
issn = "2046-4053",
publisher = "BioMed Central",
number = "1",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Advancing knowledge of rapid reviews

T2 - An analysis of results, conclusions and recommendations from published review articles examining rapid reviews

AU - Featherstone, Robin M.

AU - Dryden, Donna M.

AU - Foisy, Michelle

AU - Guise, Jeanne-Marie

AU - Mitchell, Matthew D.

AU - Paynter, Robin A.

AU - Robinson, Karen A.

AU - Umscheid, Craig A.

AU - Hartling, Lisa

PY - 2015/4/17

Y1 - 2015/4/17

N2 - Background: Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented. Results: A cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods. Conclusions: RR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards.

AB - Background: Rapid review (RR) products are inherently appealing as they are intended to be less time-consuming and resource-intensive than traditional systematic reviews (SRs); however, there is concern about the rigor of methods and reliability of results. In 2013 to 2014, a workgroup comprising representatives from the Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality's Evidence-based Practice Center Program conducted a formal evaluation of RRs. This paper summarizes results, conclusions, and recommendations from published review articles examining RRs. Methods: A systematic literature search was conducted and publications were screened independently by two reviewers. Twelve review articles about RRs were identified. One investigator extracted data about RR methods and how they compared with standard SRs. A narrative summary is presented. Results: A cross-comparison of review articles revealed the following: 1) ambiguous definitions of RRs, 2) varying timeframes to complete RRs ranging from 1 to 12 months, 3) limited scope of RR questions, and 4) significant heterogeneity between RR methods. Conclusions: RR definitions, methods, and applications vary substantially. Published review articles suggest that RRs should not be viewed as a substitute for a standard SR, although they have unique value for decision-makers. Recommendations for RR producers include transparency of methods used and the development of reporting standards.

KW - Evidence-based practice

KW - Health technology assessment

KW - Knowledge synthesis

KW - Rapid review

KW - Review literature as topic

KW - Systematic review

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=84939179538&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=84939179538&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4

DO - 10.1186/s13643-015-0040-4

M3 - Article

VL - 4

JO - Systematic Reviews

JF - Systematic Reviews

SN - 2046-4053

IS - 1

M1 - 50

ER -