You are here

  • Home
  • Online First
  • Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review

Article Text

Article menu
Research methods and reporting
Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review
  1. Chantelle Garritty1,2,
  2. Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit3,
  3. Candyce Hamel1,4,
  4. Declan Devane5
  5. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group
    1. 1School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    2. 2Global Health and Guidelines Division, Public Health Agency of Canada, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    3. 3Cochrane Austria, Department for Evidence-based Medicine and Evaluation, University for Continuing Education Krems, Krems, Niederösterreich, Austria
    4. 4Canadian Association of Radiologists, Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    5. 5Cochrane Ireland and Evidence Synthesis Ireland, School of Nursing and Midwifery, University of Galway, Galway, Ireland
    1. Correspondence to Dr Chantelle Garritty, School of Epidemiology and Public Health, University of Ottawa, Ottawa, Canada; garritty{at}gmail.com

    Abstract

    This paper, part of the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group series, offers guidance on determining when to conduct a rapid review (RR) instead of a full systematic review (SR). While both review types aim to comprehensively synthesise evidence, RRs, conducted within a shorter time frame of typically 6 months or less, involve streamlined methods to expedite the process. The decision to opt for an RR depends on the urgency of the research question, resource availability and the impact on decision outcomes. The paper categorises scenarios where RRs are appropriate, including urgent decision-making, informing guidelines, assessing new technologies and identifying evidence gaps. It also outlines instances when RRs may be inappropriate, cautioning against conducting them solely for ease, quick publication or only cost-saving motives.

    When deciding on an RR, it is crucial to consider both conceptual and practical factors. These factors encompass the urgency of needing timely evidence, the consequences of waiting for a full SR, the potential risks associated with incomplete evidence, and the risk of not using synthesised evidence in decision-making, among other considerations. Key factors to weigh also include having a clearly defined need, a manageable scope and access to the necessary expertise. Overall, this paper aims to guide informed judgements about whether to choose an RR over an SR based on the specific research question and context. Researchers and decision-makers are encouraged to carefully weigh potential trade-offs when opting for RRs.

    • Methods
    • Systematic Reviews as Topic
    • Clinical Decision-Making

    Data availability statement

    Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

    http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/

    This is an open access article distributed in accordance with the Creative Commons Attribution Non Commercial (CC BY-NC 4.0) license, which permits others to distribute, remix, adapt, build upon this work non-commercially, and license their derivative works on different terms, provided the original work is properly cited, appropriate credit is given, any changes made indicated, and the use is non-commercial. See: http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc/4.0/.

    https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112722

    Statistics from Altmetric.com

      Request Permissions

      If you wish to reuse any or all of this article please use the link below which will take you to the Copyright Clearance Center’s RightsLink service. You will be able to get a quick price and instant permission to reuse the content in many different ways.

      Data availability statement

      Data sharing not applicable as no datasets generated and/or analysed for this study.

      View Full Text

      Supplementary materials

      • Supplementary Data

        This web only file has been produced by the BMJ Publishing Group from an electronic file supplied by the author(s) and has not been edited for content.

      Footnotes

      • Twitter @cgarritty

      • Collaborators On behalf of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group: Chantelle Garritty, Barbara Nussbaumer-Streit, Candyce Hamel, Declan Devane.

      • Contributors All authors (CG, BN-S, CH and DD) contributed to the conceptualisation of this paper on behalf of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. CG wrote the first draft of the manuscript. All authors (CG, BN-S, CH and DD) read and approved the final version. CG is the guarantor and attests that all authors meet authorship criteria and that no others meeting the criteria have been omitted.

      • Funding The authors have not declared a specific grant for this research from any funding agency in the public, commercial or not-for-profit sectors.

      • Competing interests None declared.

      • Patient and public involvement Patients and/or the public were not involved in the design, or conduct, or reporting, or dissemination plans of this research.

      • Provenance and peer review Not commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

      • Supplemental material This content has been supplied by the author(s). It has not been vetted by BMJ Publishing Group Limited (BMJ) and may not have been peer-reviewed. Any opinions or recommendations discussed are solely those of the author(s) and are not endorsed by BMJ. BMJ disclaims all liability and responsibility arising from any reliance placed on the content. Where the content includes any translated material, BMJ does not warrant the accuracy and reliability of the translations (including but not limited to local regulations, clinical guidelines, terminology, drug names and drug dosages), and is not responsible for any error and/or omissions arising from translation and adaptation or otherwise.