Table 1 Common methods, approaches, and key considerations for the steps in a rapid review
Review step | Commonly employed methods and approaches | Key considerations |
|---|---|---|
Needs assessment, topic selection, and topic refinement | •Most use standard intake processes, involving the requester, to refine the topic, obtain clarity on purpose(s), and determine whether rapid review is a suitable method •Total production timeline generally 1 to 4 months | •Work with requester to ascertain intended purpose, scope, and timeline and ensure that proposed approach fits intended purpose. Streamline the request to focus on a limited number of high priority questions and outcomes •A preliminary literature search can help to inform conversations with requester and to scope the review •Map the mandate to timeline and deliverables |
Protocol development | •A protocol is commonly prepared, serving as a point of reference to avoid (or document) deviations, but is usually not formally registered •Producers typically use a PICO format and develop key questions iteratively with requesters | •Consider registering the protocol with PROSPERO (https://www.crd.york.ac.uk/PROSPERO/) or the Open Science Framework (https://osf.io/) and include “rapid review” or a similar term in the title •Use PRISMA-P [37] (http://www.prisma-statement.org/Extensions/Protocols) reporting items to guide protocol development and the PRISMA [38] statement for systematic reviews (http://www.prisma-statement.org/PRISMAStatement/) for review reporting and to track the overall process and information flow |
Literature search | •Many rapid reviews are based on searches of the PubMed/MEDLINE, Cochrane Library, and Embase databases •Most entail a search of two or more databases, with common limits being date, language (generally English only), and study design; geographical limits may be used to enhance applicability •Some level of gray literature searching is common, but contact with authors is uncommon | •Tailor the selection of literature databases to the topic. Addition of a gray literature search depends on the topic, purpose, and timeline •Use a staged search to first identify existing systematic reviews and then studies with other designs that will provide the most rigorous evidence to answer the question •Peer review of the search strategy, using a tool such as the PRESS checklist, can help to optimize the search strategy [39] |
Screening and study selection | •Approaches are highly variable, with about half of rapid reviews using a single reviewer, with or without verification by a second reviewer | •Choose the approach for study screening and selection according to requirements of the review and resources available •In lieu of dual screening and selection, reasonable approaches involve using a single experienced reviewer for application of inclusion criteria and two reviewers for application of exclusion criteria or using one person for screening with verification of a subset of records by another |
Data extraction | •Approaches vary, but data extraction by a single reviewer, with or without verification, is the most common method | •Similar to the situation for screening, the number of independent reviewers varies, but a reasonable approach is to use a single reviewer to extract data, with a second reviewer checking at least a 10% random sample of extractions for accuracy. Use of dual performance or checking may be needed more for extraction of quantitative results than for extraction of descriptive study information •Limit extraction to key study characteristics and outcomes |
Risk-of-bias assessment | •For most rapid reviews, some risk-of-bias or quality assessment of included studies is conducted by a single reviewer, with or without verification | •The choice of appraisal instrument varies, with both standard and customized approaches in use •An approach similar to that for data extraction can be used (i.e., single reviewer, with verification by a second reviewer) |
Synthesis | •Narrative summaries are common, with meta-analysis performed only infrequently •Final reports often include implications, recommendations for policy, and discussion of research limitations | •An iterative approach to the synthesis process can involve post hoc protocol adjustments •The quality of the body of evidence and the strength of any recommendations can be assessed using an approach such as the GRADE system (http://www.gradeworkinggroup.org/) •The limitations of the review should be discussed and cautious conclusions provided |
Report production and dissemination | •Peer review is common but is often performed internally •Reports are often disseminated beyond the original requester but are infrequently published in the peer-reviewed literature | •Software tools can help to automate and track review steps. Systematic Review Toolbox is a searchable database of software tools to support evidence synthesis tasks (http://systematicreviewtools.com/) •Standardization of processes and templates aids in production of the report and enhances transparency of the review |