CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 36Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review

Hamel, Candyce, Michaud, Alan, Thuku, Micere, Affengruber, Lisa, Skidmore, Becky, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Stevens, Adrienne, Garritty, Chantelle·2020·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.027
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Objectives The objective is to identify studies that have assessed methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews (RRs) and mapping these to review conduct stages and Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidance.Study design and setting We conducted a systematic scoping review. We searched multiple databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase), which were supplemented by grey literature searching. Methods were defined a priori in a published protocol.Results Out of 1,873 records, 90 publications were divided into four RR categories: formal evaluation (n = 14), development, which included four subcategories (n = 65), comparison (n = 2), and applying reporting guidelines/critical appraisal tools (n = 3), and a systematic review surrogate category (n = 6). Four formal evaluation studies were composite evaluations, including more than one shortcut simultaneously. The remaining 10 studies evaluated viable (e.g., including English-only publications) and unviable (e.g., single-reviewer screening) shortcuts, covering five key dimensions and five 'other' (e.g., involving stakeholders) considerations while conducting a review. Because of complexities around shortcuts evaluated, only a cursory mapping to MECIR criteria was possible.Conclusion Some methods shortcuts may be valid in the context of RRs, but limitations in the studies may limit their applicability. The results will serve to inform discussions within Cochrane regarding possible future implementation of RRs.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.027

Cites

43 of 43 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The original interim guidance was informed by a scoping review of the evidence, a proposed definition of a rapid review, primary meta-epidemiological studies, and a survey of Cochrane community members.

    “The original guidance was informed by a suite of research, including a scoping review of the underlying evidence, 2 a proposed definition of a rapid review, 3 primary meta-epidemiological studies, 4 5 and a survey of Cochrane community members who prioritised the appropriateness of rapid review methods across stages during the conduct of reviews. 1”

    From Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness (2024) · cites this paper as [2]

  • The literature scan screened 841 citations and assessed 87 of them for relevance.

    “A total of 841 citations were then screened and 87 articles assessed for relevancy in accordance with an initial scoping review of rapid review methods 2”

    From Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness (2024) · cites this paper as [2]

  • A second scoping review identified 14 empirical studies that evaluated rapid review methods and mapped them to stages of review conduct.

    “We also undertook a second scoping review that identified 14 empirical studies that evaluated RR methods, which we mapped to stages of review conduct [23].”

    From Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [23]

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Hamel, C., Michaud, A., Thuku, M., Affengruber, L., Skidmore, B., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Stevens, A., & Garritty, C.
Affiliations
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
Corresponding author
Hamel, Candyce
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2020-10
Volume
126
Pages
131-140
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.027
OpenAlex
W3037616222
Cited by
36
References
43
Citations by year
2026: 3 · 2025: 5 · 2024: 9 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 7 · 2021: 1 · 2020: 5
FWCI
2.89
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
Canadian Institutes of Health Research
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Statistics, Probability and Uncertainty › Meta-analysis and systematic reviews
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Clinical practice guidelines implementation
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
Keywords
rapid review, systematic review methodology, literature screening, critical appraisal tools, reporting guidelines, stakeholder engagement, methodological validity
MeSH terms
Abbreviations as Topic, Australia, Canada, United Kingdom, Humans, Publications, Research Design, Review Literature as Topic, Databases, Bibliographic, Databases, Factual, MEDLINE, Guidelines as Topic

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review