Definition, characteristics and methodological interpretation of Cochrane rapid reviews_Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Authors：

ZHOU Chuanru ¹ , LEI Changbin ¹ , WANG Cong ² ,  JIANG Yan ³

1. West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University/West China Hospital, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
2. Evidence-based Nursing Center, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;
3. Department of Nursing, West China Hospital, Sichuan University/West China School of Nursing, Sichuan University, Chengdu 610041, P. R. China;

Corresponding author：

JIANG Yan, Email: hxhljy2018@163.com

Keywords：

Rapid reviews; Definition; Methodology; Interpretation

DOI：

10.7507/1672-2531.202209026

Video：

Export PDF Favorites Scan Get Citation

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Since the COVID-19 outbreak, the number of studies using rapid reviews (RR) for rapid evidence-based decision-making has been increasing. RR can significantly improve the timeliness of evidence and play an important role in decision making. To clarify the definition of RR and standardize its application, the Cochrane RR Methodology Group defined RR in 2021 and published the evidence-based guidelines for RR methodology. To promote researchers' understanding of RR, standardize the application of RR methodology, and improve the overall quality of this type of research, this paper introduced the development history of RR and interpreted the definition, characteristics and methodological content of RR.

Citation： ZHOU Chuanru, LEI Changbin, WANG Cong, JIANG Yan. Definition, characteristics and methodological interpretation of Cochrane rapid reviews. Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine, 2023, 23(2): 240-248. doi: 10.7507/1672-2531.202209026 Copy

1.	Cochrane Library. What is a systematic review? Available at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews.
2.	Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, et al. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open, 2017, 7(2): e012545.
3.	Tricco AC, Straus SE, Ghaffar A, et al. Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: more important than ever before. Syst Rev, 2022, 11(1): 153.
4.	Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 74-85.
5.	Langlois EV, Straus SE, Antony J, et al. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage. BMJ Glob Health, 2019, 4(1): e001178.
6.	李苗苗, 吴雪, 徐思敏, 等. 快速卫生技术评估的概况性综述. 中国中药杂志, 2022, 47(12): 3125-3135.
7.	Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019, (10): ED000142.
8.	Best L, Stevens A, Colin-Jones D, et al. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England. J Clin Effectiveness, 1997, 2(2): 51-56.
9.	Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2008, Spring,24(2): 133-139.
10.	World Health Organization. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258698.
11.	Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 130: 13-22.
12.	Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci, 2010, 5: 56.
13.	Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ. Defining rapid reviews: a modified Delphi consensus approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2016, 32(4): 265-275.
14.	Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med, 2015, 13: 224.
15.	Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 70: 61-67.
16.	Speckemeier C, Niemann A, Wasem J, et al. Methodological guidance for rapid reviews in healthcare: a scoping review. Res Synth Methods, 2022, 13(4): 394-404.
17.	Huband N, Furtado V, Schel S, et al. Characteristics and Needs of Long-Stay Forensic Psychiatric Inpatients: A Rapid Review of the Literature. Int J Forensic Ment Health, 2018, 17(1): 45-60.
18.	King VJ, Stevens A, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Paper 2: performing rapid reviews. Syst Rev, 2022, 11(1): 151.
19.	Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 126: 131-140.
20.	Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, et al. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst, 2016, 14(1): 83.
21.	Moore G, Redman S, D'Este C, et al. Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals. A before and after study. Syst Rev, 2017, 6(1): 23.
22.	Mayr V, Nußbaumer-Streit B, Gartlehner G. Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review. Gesundheitswesen, 2020, 82(6): 501-506.
23.	Anglemyer A, Moore TH, Parker L, et al. Digital contact tracing technologies in epidemics: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (8): CD013699.
24.	Viswanathan M, Kahwati L, Jahn B, et al. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (9): CD013718.
25.	Nussbaumer-Streit B, Klerings I, Dobrescu AI, et al. Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 118: 42-54.
26.	Noone C, McSharry J, Smalle M, et al. Video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older people: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (5): CD013632.
27.	Noone C, Morrissey EC, Sharry JM, et al. Cochrane rapid review protocol - the effectiveness of video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older people. Available at: https://osf.io/rfxky/#!.
28.	Spry C, Mierzwinski-Urban M. The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports. Res Synth Methods, 2018, 9(4): 521-526.
29.	Waffenschmidt S, Knelangen M, Sieben W, et al. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2019, 19(1): 132.
30.	Gartlehner G, Affengruber L, Titscher V, et al. Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 121: 20-28.
31.	Burns J, Movsisyan A, Stratil JM, et al. International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2021, (3): CD013717.
32.	Paludan-Müller AS, Boesen K, Klerings I, et al. Hand cleaning with ash for reducing the spread of viral and bacterial infections: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (4): CD013597.
33.	Nussbaumer-Streit B, Mayr V, Dobrescu AI, et al. Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (9): CD013574.
34.	Schünemann H, Brojek J, Guyatt G, et al. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Available at: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.
35.	Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method (2nd edition). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2007.

1. Cochrane Library. What is a systematic review? Available at: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews.
2. Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, et al. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open, 2017, 7(2): e012545.
3. Tricco AC, Straus SE, Ghaffar A, et al. Rapid reviews for health policy and systems decision-making: more important than ever before. Syst Rev, 2022, 11(1): 153.
4. Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 129: 74-85.
5. Langlois EV, Straus SE, Antony J, et al. Using rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems and progress towards universal health coverage. BMJ Glob Health, 2019, 4(1): e001178.
6. 李苗苗, 吴雪, 徐思敏, 等. 快速卫生技术评估的概况性综述. 中国中药杂志, 2022, 47(12): 3125-3135.
7. Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, et al. Updated guidance for trusted systematic reviews: a new edition of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2019, (10): ED000142.
8. Best L, Stevens A, Colin-Jones D, et al. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: the development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England. J Clin Effectiveness, 1997, 2(2): 51-56.
9. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2008, Spring,24(2): 133-139.
10. World Health Organization. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide. Available at: https://apps.who.int/iris/handle/10665/258698.
11. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol, 2021, 130: 13-22.
12. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci, 2010, 5: 56.
13. Kelly SE, Moher D, Clifford TJ. Defining rapid reviews: a modified Delphi consensus approach. Int J Technol Assess Health Care, 2016, 32(4): 265-275.
14. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med, 2015, 13: 224.
15. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, et al. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol, 2016, 70: 61-67.
16. Speckemeier C, Niemann A, Wasem J, et al. Methodological guidance for rapid reviews in healthcare: a scoping review. Res Synth Methods, 2022, 13(4): 394-404.
17. Huband N, Furtado V, Schel S, et al. Characteristics and Needs of Long-Stay Forensic Psychiatric Inpatients: A Rapid Review of the Literature. Int J Forensic Ment Health, 2018, 17(1): 45-60.
18. King VJ, Stevens A, Nussbaumer-Streit B, et al. Paper 2: performing rapid reviews. Syst Rev, 2022, 11(1): 151.
19. Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, et al. Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 126: 131-140.
20. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, et al. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Res Policy Syst, 2016, 14(1): 83.
21. Moore G, Redman S, D'Este C, et al. Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals. A before and after study. Syst Rev, 2017, 6(1): 23.
22. Mayr V, Nußbaumer-Streit B, Gartlehner G. Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review. Gesundheitswesen, 2020, 82(6): 501-506.
23. Anglemyer A, Moore TH, Parker L, et al. Digital contact tracing technologies in epidemics: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (8): CD013699.
24. Viswanathan M, Kahwati L, Jahn B, et al. Universal screening for SARS-CoV-2 infection: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (9): CD013718.
25. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Klerings I, Dobrescu AI, et al. Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 118: 42-54.
26. Noone C, McSharry J, Smalle M, et al. Video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older people: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (5): CD013632.
27. Noone C, Morrissey EC, Sharry JM, et al. Cochrane rapid review protocol - the effectiveness of video calls for reducing social isolation and loneliness in older people. Available at: https://osf.io/rfxky/#!.
28. Spry C, Mierzwinski-Urban M. The impact of the peer review of literature search strategies in support of rapid review reports. Res Synth Methods, 2018, 9(4): 521-526.
29. Waffenschmidt S, Knelangen M, Sieben W, et al. Single screening versus conventional double screening for study selection in systematic reviews: a methodological systematic review. BMC Med Res Methodol, 2019, 19(1): 132.
30. Gartlehner G, Affengruber L, Titscher V, et al. Single-reviewer abstract screening missed 13 percent of relevant studies: a crowd-based, randomized controlled trial. J Clin Epidemiol, 2020, 121: 20-28.
31. Burns J, Movsisyan A, Stratil JM, et al. International travel-related control measures to contain the COVID-19 pandemic: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2021, (3): CD013717.
32. Paludan-Müller AS, Boesen K, Klerings I, et al. Hand cleaning with ash for reducing the spread of viral and bacterial infections: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (4): CD013597.
33. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Mayr V, Dobrescu AI, et al. Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review. Cochrane Database Syst Rev, 2020, (9): CD013574.
34. Schünemann H, Brojek J, Guyatt G, et al. GRADE handbook for grading quality of evidence and strength of recommendations. Available at: https://gdt.gradepro.org/app/handbook/handbook.html.
35. Dillman DA. Mail and internet surveys: the tailored design method (2nd edition). Hoboken: John Wiley & Sons Inc, 2007.

Previous Article
Interpretation of standards for conducting and reporting Delphi studies (CREDES) in healthcare research

Chinese Journal of Evidence-Based Medicine

Definition, characteristics and methodological interpretation of Cochrane rapid reviews

Abstract Full text Figures/Tables Video References Cited by

Previous Article

Format

Content