CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 384Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsDelphi Technique in ResearchHealth Sciences Research and Education

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 51 of the 51 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Defining Rapid Reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews

Hamel, Candyce, Michaud, Alan, Thuku, Micere, Skidmore, Becky, Stevens, Adrienne, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Garritty, Chantelle·2021·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

BACKGROUND Rapid reviews were first mentioned in the literature in 1997, when Best et al. described the rapid health technology assessment program in the south and west regions of England but did not provide a formal definition. More recently, the only consensus around a rapid review definition is that a formal definition does not exist. The primary aim of this work is to create a repository of existing definitions and to identify key themes, which may help the knowledge synthesis community in defining rapid review products. METHODS A systematic scoping review was performed to identify definitions used in journal-published rapid reviews written in English between 2017 and January 2019. We searched Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science on December 21, 2018. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using a priori-defined methods published in a protocol. Definitions from rapid review methods papers (published from 1997 onward) identified in another scoping review were added to the results, and all definitions were thematically analyzed using NVivo. A quantitative analysis was also performed around studies cited. RESULTS Definitions from 216 rapid reviews and 90 rapid review methods papers were included in the thematic analysis. Eight key themes were identified: accelerated/rapid process or approach, variation in methods shortcuts, focus/depth/breadth of scope, compare and contrast to a full traditional systematic review, stakeholder rationale, resource efficiency rationale, systematic approach, bias/limitations. Secondary referencing was a common occurrence. CONCLUSION Thematic analysis performed in this systematic scoping review has allowed for the creation of a suggested definition for rapid reviews that can be used to inform the systematic review community.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041

Cites

51 of 51 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

Citations

Cites

Show all 51 references

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 201–300 of 384

Related

See all

Metadata

Authors
Hamel, C., Michaud, A., Thuku, M., Skidmore, B., Stevens, A., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., & 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
2021-01
Volume
129
Pages
74-85
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.09.041
OpenAlex
W3091820138
Semantic Scholar
c743be2275f0cb122f13a8cb41a84c3e76699486
Cited by
384
References
51
Citations by year
2026: 43 · 2025: 71 · 2024: 85 · 2023: 81 · 2022: 64 · 2021: 35
FWCI
9.53
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
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Delphi Technique in Research
  • Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Sciences Research and Education
Keywords
rapid review, knowledge synthesis, systematic review methodology, health technology assessment, resource efficiency, scope of review
MeSH terms
Humans, Terminology as Topic, Publishing, Review Literature 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