Elsevier

Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Volume 130, February 2021, Pages 13-22
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology

Original Article
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007Get rights and content
Under a Creative Commons license
open access

Abstract

Objectives

To develop methods guidance to support the conduct of rapid reviews (RRs) produced within Cochrane and beyond, in response to requests for timely evidence syntheses for decision-making purposes including urgent health issues of high priority.

Study Design and Setting

Interim recommendations were informed by a scoping review of the underlying evidence, primary methods studies conducted, and a survey sent to 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities, who were asked to rate and rank RR methods across stages of review conduct. Discussions among those with expertise in RR methods further informed the list of recommendations with accompanying rationales provided.

Results

Based on survey results from 63 respondents (53% response rate), 26 RR methods recommendations are presented for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement or scored highest in the absence of such agreement. Where possible, how recommendations align with Cochrane methods guidance for systematic reviews is highlighted.

Conclusion

The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers new, interim guidance to support the conduct of RRs. Because best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some RR methods shortcuts taken, this guidance will need to be updated as additional abbreviated methods are evaluated.

Keywords

Rapid review
Systematic review
Evidence synthesis
Decision-making

Cited by (0)

Funding source: This work was supported by funding provided by the Cochrane Collaboration (United Kingdom) to the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group and in-kind support from the following institutions: Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (OHRI); Cochrane Austria, Danube University Krems; CADTH; The Center for Evidence-based Policy (CEBP), Oregon Health & Science University.

Conflict of interest: None of the authors report any conflicts of interest with respect to this manuscript.

Authors' contributions: CG: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Data curation, Formal analysis, Investigation, Methodology, Project administration, Visualization, Writing – original draft, Writing - review & editing. GG: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. BNS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Investigation, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. VJK: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. CH: Conceptualization, Data curation, Formal analysis, Methodology, Validation, Writing - review & editing. CK: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing - review & editing. LA: Investigation, Validation, Writing - review & editing. AS: Conceptualization, Funding acquisition, Methodology, Writing - review & editing.