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
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
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?
In the citing paper
“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 [3]
In the citing paper
“proposed a definition of RR that covers the most common themes that were identified in approximately 50% or more of the 216 RRs and 90 methods articles included [22].”
From Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews (2021) · cites this paper as [22]
Citations
Cites
PRISMA Extension for Scoping Reviews (PRISMA-ScR): Checklist and Explanation
Tricco, A. C., Lillie, E., Zarin, W., O'Brien, K. K., Colquhoun, H., Levac, D., Moher, D., Peters, M. D. J., Horsley, T., Weeks, L., et al. (2018) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/m18-0850 · Cited by 43,565
Self-citationScoping studies: towards a methodological framework
Arksey, H., & O'Malley, L. (2005) · International Journal of Social Research Methodology · doi:10.1080/1364557032000119616 · Cited by 36,742
A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009) · Health Information & Libraries Journal · doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x · Cited by 10,817
PRESS Peer Review of Electronic Search Strategies: 2015 Guideline Statement
McGowan, J., Sampson, M., Salzwedel, D. M., Cogo, E., Foerster, V., & Lefebvre, C. (2016) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2016.01.021 · Cited by 5,700
Scoping reviews: Time for clarity in definition, methods, and reporting
Colquhoun, H. L., Levac, D., O'Brien, K. K., Straus, S., Tricco, A. C., Perrier, L., Kastner, M., & Moher, D. (2014) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2014.03.013 · Cited by 2,783
(2020) · JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis · doi:10.46658/jbimes-20-12 · Cited by 2,545
Peters, M., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A., & Khalil, H. (2019) · JBI Reviewer's Manual · doi:10.46658/jbirm-20-01 · Cited by 2,222
Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach
Khangura, S., Konnyu, K., Cushman, R., Grimshaw, J., & Moher, D. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10 · Cited by 1,232
Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
Booth, A., Sutton, A., Clowes, M., & James, M. M.-S. (2022) · SAGE Publications Ltd eBooks · doi:10.4135/9781036232009 · Cited by 1,174
A scoping review of rapid review methods
Tricco, A. C., Antony, J., Zarin, W., Strifler, L., Ghassemi, M., Ivory, J., Perrier, L., Hutton, B., Moher, D., & Straus, S. E. (2015) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6 · Cited by 1,146
Clarifying differences between review designs and methods
Gough, D., Thomas, J., & Oliver, S. (2012) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-28 · Cited by 1,063
Systematic Approaches to a Successful Literature Review
MacDonald, J. (2013) · Journal of the Canadian Health Libraries Association / Journal de l Association de bilbiothèques de la santé du Canada · doi:10.5596/c13-009 · Cited by 898
Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews
Ganann, R., Ciliska, D., & Thomas, H. (2010) · Implementation Science · doi:10.1186/1748-5908-5-56 · Cited by 752
E-Mental Health: A Rapid Review of the Literature
Lal, S., & Adair, C. E. (2014) · Psychiatric Services · doi:10.1176/appi.ps.201300009 · Cited by 417
Coster, J. E., Turner, J. K., Bradbury, D., & Cantrell, A. (2017) · Academic Emergency Medicine · doi:10.1111/acem.13220 · Cited by 379
Watt, A., Cameron, A., Sturm, L., Lathlean, T., Babidge, W., Blamey, S., Facey, K., Hailey, D., Norderhaug, I., & Maddern, G. (2008) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462308080185 · Cited by 226
Rapid evidence assessment: increasing the transparency of an emerging methodology
Varker, T., Forbes, D., Dell, L., Weston, A. R., Merlin, T., Hodson, S., & O'Donnell, M. L. (2015) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.12405 · Cited by 177
Reviews: Rapid! Rapid! Rapid! …and systematic
Schünemann, H. J., & Moja, L. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-4 · Cited by 166
RAPID VERSUS FULL SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS: VALIDITY IN CLINICAL PRACTICE?
Watt, A., Cameron, A., Sturm, L., Lathlean, T., Babidge, W., Blamey, S., Facey, K., Hailey, D., Norderhaug, I., & Maddern, G. (2008) · ANZ Journal of Surgery · doi:10.1111/j.1445-2197.2008.04730.x · Cited by 163
Kelly, S., Moher, D., & Clifford, T. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0258-9 · Cited by 152
Redefining rapid reviews: a flexible framework for restricted systematic reviews
Plüddemann, A., Aronson, J. K., Onakpoya, I., Heneghan, C. J., & Mahtani, K. R. (2018) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-110990 · Cited by 144
RAPID REVIEW: AN EMERGING APPROACH TO EVIDENCE SYNTHESIS IN HEALTH TECHNOLOGY ASSESSMENT
Khangura, S., Polisena, J., Clifford, T. J., Farrah, K., & Kamel, C. (2014) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462313000664 · Cited by 138
Harker, J., & Kleijnen, J. (2012) · International Journal of Evidence-Based Healthcare · doi:10.1111/j.1744-1609.2012.00290.x · Cited by 137
Polisena, J., Garritty, C., Kamel, C., Stevens, A., & Abou-Setta, A. M. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0022-6 · Cited by 133
Self-citationSystematic reviews: when is an update an update?
Moher, D., & Tsertsvadze, A. (2006) · The Lancet · doi:10.1016/s0140-6736(06)68358-x · Cited by 110
Rapid evidence assessments of research to inform social policy: taking stock and moving forward
Thomas, J., Newman, M., & Oliver, S. (2013) · Evidence and Policy · doi:10.1332/174426413x662572 · Cited by 109
Methods for Developing Evidence Reviews in Short Periods of Time: A Scoping Review
Abou-Setta, A. M., Jeyaraman, M. M., Attia, A. M., Al-Inany, H. G., Ferri, M., Ansari, M. T., Garritty, C., Bond, K., & Norris, S. L. (2016) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0165903 · Cited by 85
Self-citationIssues in conducting and disseminating brief reviews of evidence
Abrami, P. C., Borokhovski, E., Bernard, R. M., Wade, C. A., Tamim, R. M., Persson, T. J., Bethel, E. C., Hanz, K., & Surkes, M. A. (2010) · Evidence & Policy · doi:10.1332/174426410x524866 · Cited by 83
Huband, N., Furtado, V. A., Schel, S. H. H., Eckert, M., Cheung, N. H.-Y., Bulten, E., & Vӧllm, B. (2018) · International Journal of Forensic Mental Health · doi:10.1080/14999013.2017.1405124 · Cited by 82
A taxonomy of rapid reviews links report types and methods to specific decision-making contexts
Hartling, L., Guise, J., Kato, E. U., Anderson, J., Belinson, S., Berliner, E., Dryden, D. M., Featherstone, R. M., Mitchell, M. D., Motu’apuaka, M. L., et al. (2015) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2015.05.036 · Cited by 75
Naughton, A., Cowley, L., Tempest, V., Maguire, S., Mann, M. K., & Kemp, A. (2017) · Child Care Health and Development · doi:10.1111/cch.12440 · Cited by 67
EPC Methods: An Exploration of Methods and Context for the Production of Rapid Reviews
Hartling, L., Guise, J., Kato, E. U., Anderson, J., Aronson, N., Belinson, S., Berliner, E., Dryden, D. M., Featherstone, R. M., Foisy, M., et al. (2015) · Cited by 62
Addressing unwarranted clinical variation: A rapid review of current evidence
Harrison, R., Manias, E., Mears, S. R., Heslop, D. J., Hinchcliff, R., & Hay, L. (2018) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.12930 · Cited by 60
DEFINING RAPID REVIEWS: A MODIFIED DELPHI CONSENSUS APPROACH
Kelly, S., Moher, D., & Clifford, T. (2016) · International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care · doi:10.1017/s0266462316000489 · Cited by 53
Peterson, K., Floyd, N., Ferguson, L., Christensen, V., & Helfand, M. (2016) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-016-0306-5 · Cited by 42
The use of rapid review methods for the U.S. Preventive services task force
Patnode, C. D., Eder, M. L., Walsh, E. S., Viswanathan, M., & Lin, J. S. (2018) · American Journal of Preventive Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.amepre.2017.07.024 · Cited by 40
Best, L., Stevens, A. J., & Colin-Jones, D. G. (1997) · Journal of Clinical Effectiveness · doi:10.1108/eb020865 · Cited by 37
Self-citationHamel, C., Michaud, A., Thuku, M., Affengruber, L., Skidmore, B., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Stevens, A., & Garritty, C. (2020) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.027 · Cited by 36
Self-citationUsing rapid reviews: an example from a study conducted to inform policy‐making
O'Leary, D. F., Casey, M., O’Connor, L., Stokes, D., Fealy, G., O’Brien, D., Smith, R., McNamara, M. S., & Egan, C. (2016) · Journal of Advanced Nursing · doi:10.1111/jan.13231 · Cited by 35
Crawford, C. C., Boyd, C. C., Jain, S., Khorsan, R., & Jonas, W. B. (2015) · BMC Research Notes · doi:10.1186/s13104-015-1604-z · Cited by 33
Rapid Review Summit: an overview and initiation of a research agenda
Polisena, J., Garritty, C., Umscheid, C. A., Kamel, C., Samra, K., Smith, J., & Vosilla, A. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0111-6 · Cited by 32
Self-citationMännistö, I. I., & Pirttimaa, R. (2018) · Adoption & Fostering · doi:10.1177/0308575918791627 · Cited by 32
Bhardwaj, K., Locke, T., Biringer, A. B., Booth, A., Darling, E., Dougan, S., Harrison, J., Hill, S., Johnson, A. P., Makin, S. R., et al. (2017) · Current Pediatric Reviews · doi:10.2174/1573396313666170110144345 · Cited by 31
Early discharge in acute mental health: A rapid literature review
Clibbens, N., Harrop, D., & Blackett, S. (2018) · International Journal of Mental Health Nursing · doi:10.1111/inm.12515 · Cited by 24
Rodriguez, A., Smith, J., & McDermid, K. (2018) · International Journal of Palliative Nursing · doi:10.12968/ijpn.2018.24.7.339 · Cited by 24
Lawani, M. A., Valéra, B., Fortier-Brochu, É., Légaré, F., Carmichael, P., Côté, L., Voyer, P., Kröger, E., Witteman, H. O., Rodríguez, C., et al. (2017) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0446-2 · Cited by 23
Ethical dimensions of paediatric nursing: A rapid evidence assessment
Bagnasco, A., Cadorin, L., Barisone, M., Bressan, V., Iemmi, M., Prandi, M., Timmins, F., Watson, R. A., & Sasso, L. (2016) · Nursing Ethics · doi:10.1177/0969733016631161 · Cited by 22
Eakle, R., Jarrett, C., Bourne, A. H., Stadler, J., & Larson, H. J. (2015) · Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1186/s13643-015-0096-1 · Cited by 20
A word about evidence: ‘rapid reviews’ or ‘restricted reviews’?
Aronson, J. K., Heneghan, C. J., Mahtani, K. R., & Plüddemann, A. (2018) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2018-111025 · Cited by 20
Identifying dietary differences between Scotland and England: a rapid review of the literature
Chambers, S., Barton, K., Albani, V., Anderson, A. S., & Wrieden, W. L. (2017) · Public Health Nutrition · doi:10.1017/s1368980017001380 · Cited by 5
Comparative Effectiveness and Safety of Rivaroxaban in Adults With Nonvalvular Atrial Fibrillation
Aronow, W. S., & Shamliyan, T. (2018) · American Journal of Therapeutics · doi:10.1097/mjt.0000000000000890 · Cited by 5
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews
Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007 · Cited by 1,141
Self-citationHambleton, A., Pepin, G., Le, A., Maloney, D., National Eating Disorder Research Consortium, Aouad, P., Barakat, S., Boakes, R., Brennan, L., Bryant, E., et al. (2022) · Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1186/s40337-022-00654-2 · Cited by 377
Risk factors for eating disorders: findings from a rapid review
Barakat, S., McLean, S. A., Bryant, E., Le, A., Marks, P., Aouad, P., Barakat, S., Boakes, R. A., Brennan, L., Bryant, E., et al. (2023) · Journal of Eating Disorders · doi:10.1186/s40337-022-00717-4 · Cited by 467
Bitar, H., & Alismail, S. (2021) · DIGITAL HEALTH · doi:10.1177/20552076211009396 · Cited by 325
Roles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review (Preprint)
Laymouna, M., Ma, Y., Lessard, D., Schuster, T., Engler, K., & Lebouché, B. (2024) · doi:10.2196/preprints.56930 · Cited by 302
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)
- 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
- 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
