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
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
