CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,141Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

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

Open access
Garritty, Chantelle, Gartlehner, Gerald, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, King, Valerie J., Hamel, Candyce, Kamel, Chris, Affengruber, Lisa, Stevens, Adrienne·2021·Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
DOI 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007PMC PMC7557165
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

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.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group presents interim, evidence-informed guidance with 26 recommendations for conducting rapid reviews, based on scoping reviews, primary methods studies, and a Cochrane stakeholder survey. It defines rapid reviews as accelerated knowledge synthesis and emphasizes stakeholder involvement, flexibility, and transparency.

Key findings

  • The survey had a 53% response rate (n = 63; completed 46%, n = 53), with respondents from 19 of 20 Cochrane entities; 62% (n = 39) had previously participated in a rapid review, and only 1 of 59 respondents indicated Cochrane should not undertake rapid reviews.
  • The label “Cochrane RR” was endorsed by 43/57 respondents (75%), and 26 rapid review methods recommendations were included where there was high or moderate agreement or where an item ranked first.
  • Agreement thresholds were high ≥70%, moderate ≥50–69%, and low <50%; if only low-level agreement was reached, the most endorsed response was still recommended so each stage had a recommendation.
  • The recommended definition is: “A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting various methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner.”

Methods

  • Guidance was informed by two scoping reviews (one of 216 rapid reviews and 90 methods articles; one identifying 14 empirical studies evaluating rapid review methods), two primary methods studies (English-language restriction; single- vs dual-reviewer screening via Cochrane Crowd), and a survey.
  • The survey was sent in September 2019 to 119 individuals from 20 Cochrane entities; results were analyzed with descriptive statistics, and recommendations were mapped to Cochrane MECIR guidance where possible.
  • Final recommendations were agreed through discussion among RRMG convenors; the authors state they did not follow a formal recommendation process but used a deliberate and systematic approach.

Limitations

  • Stated: the survey response rate was somewhat lower than typical Internet surveys (58%); not all rapid review stages had corresponding evidence; best practice is limited by lack of currently available evidence for some shortcuts; and the interim guidance will need updating as abbreviated methods are evaluated.
  • Stated: the guidance was developed within Cochrane and focused on rapid reviews of interventions; the authors note future adaptation is needed for other review types (e.g., diagnostic test accuracy or screening), and some recommendations may not apply across all rapid reviews.
  • Evident: no formal ethics approval was sought because the survey was internal, and no formal recommendation process was used; some recommendations therefore rest on expert/survey agreement where empirical evidence was absent.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007

Cites

36 of 36 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 36 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    The approach of one reviewer including and two reviewers excluding at title and abstract screening was ranked highest by survey respondents.

    “One reviewer to include and two reviewersto exclude at title and abstract screening for Cochrane RRs was the highest ranked among survey respondents.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingcitation

    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].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [23] Hamel, 2020, Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review, J Clin Epidemiol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingown data

    Twenty-six survey items reached moderate or high agreement, or ranked first, across stages of review conduct.

    “we included twenty-six items that attained a moderate to a high level of agreement or that ranked first as an approach across the stages of conduct”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Only one of 59 respondents said Cochrane should not undertake rapid reviews.

    “only one of 59 respondents indicated Cochrane should not undertake RRs”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The term Cochrane RR was strongly endorsed as sufficient for use within Cochrane by 43 of 57 respondents (75%).

    “The label Cochrane RR was strongly endorsed as a sufficient term (43/57; 75%) for use within Cochrane.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 32
  • May combine two claims. 26

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The survey achieved an overall response rate of 53% (63 respondents) and a completed response rate of 46% (53 respondents).

    “The overall survey response rate was 53% (n = 63) with a completed response rate of 46% (n = 53).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    62% (39) of respondents had previously taken part in a rapid review in some capacity.

    “Further, 62% (n = 39) had previously participated in an RR in various capacities”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Among respondents, 38% (24) were extremely or very familiar with rapid reviews and another 38% (24) were somewhat familiar.

    “Of those that responded, a large proportion were either extremely/very (38%; n = 24) or somewhat (38%; n = 24) familiar with RRs.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Respondents came from 19 of the 20 Cochrane entities that were approached.

    “Respondents were from 19 of 20 entities approached.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Dual independent full-text screening was ranked second most acceptable.

    “Dual, independent screening of full-text articles ranked second as most acceptable.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The risk-of-bias approach recommended for rapid reviews ranked highest in the survey; it is less stringent than the Cochrane Reviews approach but still has one reviewer perform the assessment and a second verify every judgment.

    “The recommended approach that ranked highest in the survey for RRs is less stringent than for Cochrane Reviews, but still involves one reviewer to do RoB with another reviewer to verify all judgments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The preferences of survey respondents are a valid basis for methodological recommendations for rapid reviews.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Survey respondents agreed that Cochrane rapid reviews should be completed within six months.

    “although survey respondents agreed Cochrane RRs should take no longer than 6 months”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Rapid reviews have become an efficient way to deliver evidence to decision makers more quickly and are now regarded as part of the knowledge synthesis family.

    “Rapid reviews (RRs) have emerged as an efficient tool to get evidence to decision makers more quickly and are now considered part of the knowledge synthesis family [5].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [5] Moher, 2015, All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more, Syst Rev source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Systematic reviews often take one to two years to complete because of the methodological rigor and process that makes them trustworthy, which limits their usefulness for time-sensitive stakeholder needs.

    “the methodological rigor and process that makes SR evidence trustworthy often take one to 2 years to complete [[1], [2], [3], [4]] and limit their utility to meet the time-sensitive needs of stakeholders.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [1] Ganann, 2010, Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews, Implement Sci source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [2] Khangura, 2012, Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach, Syst Rev source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] Bero, 2012, Measuring the performance of the Cochrane library, Cochrane Database Syst Rev

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    One study found that knowledge brokering of proposals improved policymakers' perceived clarity of information, reasons for commissioning the rapid review, context for questions, scope, methods, and report conclusions, and reviewers' confidence in meeting policymakers' needs.

    “Evidence from one study suggests that knowledge brokering of proposals improved the perceived clarity of information provided to policymakers; reasons for commissioning the RR; and context for the questions, scope, methods, and report conclusions. Further, it improved the confidence of reviewers to meet the policymakers’ needs [27].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [27] Moore, 2017, Does knowledge brokering improve the quality of rapid review proposals? A before and after study, Syst Rev source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationcitation

    Using a publication-date limit is a practical shortcut, but it requires careful case-by-case consideration.

    “Therefore, although setting a date restriction is a pragmatic shortcut, this needs to be carefully considered for each topic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The interim guidance rests on current knowledge of rapid review methods and is already being used to develop early Cochrane rapid reviews answering COVID-19 clinical questions from international stakeholders.

    “this interim guidance is based on what is currently known about RR methods and is being actively used in the development of early Cochrane RR products to address pressing clinical questions posed by international stakeholders in response to COVID-19 [35,36]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [35] Nussbaumer-Streit, 2020, Quarantine alone or in combination with other public health measures to control COVID-19: a rapid review, Cochrane Database Syst Rev

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [36] Paludan-Müller, 2020, Hand cleaning with ash for reducing the spread of viral and bacterial infections: a rapid review, Cochrane Database Syst Rev

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationnone given

    Specific guidance of this kind will improve the usefulness and robustness of Cochrane rapid review results.

    “Having specific guidance will improve the utility and robustness of the results of Cochrane RRs”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Limits to eligibility criteria help make rapid reviews manageable and timely.

    “The various limits to eligibility criteria are important to ensure RRs are manageable and timely.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A published study found that the experience of data abstractors matters less than previously believed and that adjudication is what reduces errors.

    “a recently published study that found the experience of data abstractors may matter less than initially thought and that adjudication is what leads to reduced errors [33]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [33] Jian-Yu, 2020, Adjudication rather than experience of data abstraction matters more in reducing errors in abstracting data in systematic reviews, Res Synth Methods

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    If rapid review findings are to influence practice and policy, outcome selection must be relevant to clinicians, policymakers, and patients.

    “If the findings of an RR are to influence practice and policy, then outcome selection needs to be relevant to clinicians, policymakers, and patients.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    A PRISMA extension for rapid reviews is in development.

    “an extension to Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) for RRs is underway [18]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [18] Stevens, 2018

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    This guidance differs from other rapid review guidance in being developed within Cochrane and in focusing on rapid reviews of interventions.

    “What sets our RR methods apart from other RR guidance is that it was developed within the context of Cochrane and focuses on RRs of interventions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data

    Development of the interim recommendations drew on a scoping review, primary methods studies, and a survey of 119 representatives from 20 Cochrane entities.

    “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”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The guidance will also apply in future situations where decisions must be made within weeks to a few months.

    “this guidance will also be applicable for future circumstances when decisions need to be made in a period of weeks to a few months”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Although the guidance was developed for Cochrane, its recommended methods are widely applicable to anyone conducting a rapid review.

    “Although this RR guidance was developed for Cochrane, the recommended methods are widely applicable for anyone conducting a rapid review.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The guidance's recommendations drew on a review of rapid review methods studies, two metaepidemiological studies by the group, a survey of Cochrane community researchers, and rapid review methodology experts.

    “recommendations were informed by a review of related RR methods studies across stages of conduct, two metaepidemiological studies conducted by the RRMG, through gathering the opinions and preferences from a wider group of researchers involved in the Cochrane community using survey methods, and the involvement of RR methodology experts.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Dual independent full-text screening fully adheres to Cochrane guidance and may be used when time and resources permit.

    “It fully adheres to Cochrane guidance and may be used if time and resources are available.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Emphasizing the location and summary of evidence from relevant, higher quality study designs first helps streamline the available evidence.

    “Emphasizing locating and summarizing evidence first from relevant, higher quality study designs will assist in streamlining available evidence.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    Skilled data extractors are essential for keeping error rates low in rapid reviews.

    “skilled extractors will be key to minimizing error rates for RRs”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Cochrane rapid reviews are advised to address only urgent, high-priority questions explicitly requested by decision makers, while other guides do not restrict rapid reviews to urgent questions.

    “Cochrane RRs are recommended to address only urgent and high priority questions explicitly requested by decision makers, whereas other guides do not necessarily limit RR conduct to urgent questions only [20]”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [20] Dobbins, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    For rapid reviews on COVID-19 or complementary and alternative medicine, relevant studies are expected to be published in languages other than English.

    “For example, if RRs are related to COVID-19, or involve complementary and alternative medicine therapies, it is expected that studies would emerge in languages other than English.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In that study, most effect size changes were small to moderate, and significant changes were relatively common.

    “In this study, most effect size changes were small but moderate, and significant changes were relatively common.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Marshall, 2019, Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study, J Clin Epidemiol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Findings indicate that excluding non-English publications from systematic reviews of clinical interventions had little effect on overall conclusions and can be a viable shortcut for rapid reviews.

    “Findings suggest that exclusion of non-English publications from SRs on clinical interventions had a minimal effect on overall conclusions and can be a viable methodological shortcut for RRs [24].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [24] Nussbaumer-Streit, 2020, Excluding non-English publications from evidence-syntheses did not change conclusions: a meta-epidemiological study, J Clin Epidemiol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The methods recommended in this guidance apply broadly to anyone conducting a rapid review.

    “the recommended methods are widely applicable for anyone conducting an RR”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Recommendations were adopted from survey items with high or moderate agreement, using thresholds of at least 70% for high and 50-69% for moderate.

    “the RRMG elected to adopt recommendations based on survey items for which there was a high or moderate level of agreement using the following as a guide: high-level (endorsed by ≥ 70% of respondents); moderate-level (endorsed by ≥50–69% of respondents); and low-level (endorsed by <50% of respondents).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisereasoning

    Cochrane Reviews permit either single or duplicate extraction of study characteristics, but require outcome data to be extracted in duplicate.

    “extracting study characteristics for which Cochrane allows for both dual and single extraction although in duplicate is highly desired and ii) extracting outcomes data, which Cochrane makes mandatory to extract in duplicate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    To the authors' knowledge, this is the first guidance to provide clear, actionable recommendations and minimum standards based on up-to-date empirical evidence evaluating rapid review methods.

    “to our knowledge, this is the first that provides clear, actionable recommendations and minimum standards based on up to date empirical evidence evaluating RR methods.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [16] Garritty, 2017, Developing WHO rapid advice guidelines in the setting of a public health emergency, J Clin Epidemiol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] Dobbins, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] Tricco, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    Although no formal recommendation process was followed, a deliberate and systematic approach was used to develop the interim guidance.

    “Although we did not follow a formal recommendation process, we used a deliberate and systematic approach to develop this interim guidance as per Web Appendix 3.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Other rapid review guides address health policy and systems research, public health, or WHO guideline development during public health emergencies.

    “Other RR guides focus on health policy and systems research, public health, or WHO guideline development in the face of public health emergencies [16,20,21].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [16] Garritty, 2017, Developing WHO rapid advice guidelines in the setting of a public health emergency, J Clin Epidemiol source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] Dobbins, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [21] Tricco, 2017

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing).

    Interpretationreasoning

    Interest in rapid reviews is expected to increase.

    “Given RRs serve an important purpose for certain stakeholders, ongoing interest in them is expected to grow.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Rapid reviews serve an important purpose for certain stakeholders.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    While examining all outcomes at the start is considered good practice, the outcome list must be shortened because rapid reviews face time and resource constraints.

    “Although exploring the full range of outcomes at the outset of the project is good practice, the list of outcomes needs to be carefully condensed given time and resource limitations of RRs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The survey's response rate was 58%, somewhat below typical Internet survey rates, but respondents came from 19 of the 20 Cochrane groups approached.

    “In spite of the survey response rate being somewhat lower than those typically obtained from Internet surveys (58%) [26], it did include participation from representatives across 19 of 20 Cochrane groups approached to take part in this survey.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] Dillman, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    The standards for conducting a meta-analysis in a systematic review apply equally to a rapid review.

    “Standards for conducting a meta-analysis for an SR equally apply to an RR.”
    • Also stated in: § Cochrane rapid review methods—interim recommendations · plain
      “The standards for conducting a meta-analysis for an SR equally apply to an RR”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Evidence suggests that limiting a search to a set number of years can cause studies to be lost and can change meta-analysis results.

    “evidence suggests that limiting the search to a set number of years may lead to a loss of studies and a change in the results of meta-analyses [28].”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [28] Marshall, 2019, Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study, J Clin Epidemiol source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Screening reference lists can identify studies missed by electronic database searches or studies wrongly excluded during screening.

    “Screening reference lists can detect missed studies when searching electronic databases or eligible studies excluded in error during screening.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    The choice of databases to search depends on the review topic and on access to those databases.

    “the selection of databases to search will depend on the topic under review and access to them.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The survey was internal to the organization, so no formal ethics approval was obtained, but participants had to give informed consent.

    “Given this was an internal organizational survey, formal ethics approval was not sought but informed consent was required to participate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The full-text screening recommendation of one reviewer including and two excluding is a methodological shortcut compared with Cochrane Reviews' full-text screening by two independent reviewers.

    “The recommendation (i.e., one reviewer to include and two reviewers to exclude) represents a methodological shortcut for RRs, when compared with full-text screening for Cochrane Reviews (i.e., two independent reviewers using full text to determine if the study meets eligibility criteria).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductcitation

    The survey was developed following recommended survey methods.

    “was developed following recommended survey methods [26].”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [26] Dillman, 2007

      Not checked in the free run.

45 of 45

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The preferences of survey respondents are a valid basis for methodological recommendations for rapid reviews.

    “The recommended approach for data extraction for RRs was the highest ranked among survey respondents”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Rapid reviews serve an important purpose for certain stakeholders.

    “Given RRs serve an important purpose for certain stakeholders, ongoing interest in them is expected to grow.”
2 of 2

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?

  • A rapid review adheres to the essential principles of systematic reviews, including scientific rigor, transparency, and reproducibility.

    “A rapid review adheres to the essential principles of systematic reviews, including scientific rigor, transparency, and reproducibility [12,13].”

    From Mental Health of Children and Adolescents Amidst COVID-19 and Past Pandemics: A Rapid Systematic Review (2021) · cites this paper as [12]

    The Introduction describes rapid reviews as using streamlined systematic-review methods, and the Results recommend protocols and transparent reporting of methods and results (page numbers unavailable). These passages support the connection to systematic-review principles and transparency, but do not establish that rapid reviews generally adhere to scientific rigor and reproducibility as claimed. (LLM, conf=0.81)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The screening process was piloted with a random sample of studies for both abstract and full text following Cochrane recommendations.

    “Following Cochrane recommendations, the screening process was piloted with a random sample of studies for both abstract and full text57.”

    From Use of automated conversational agents in improving young population mental health: a scoping review (2024) · cites this paper as [57]

    The interim recommendations (R14–R15; page not provided) recommend piloting screening with the same 30–50 abstracts and 5–10 full-text articles across the screening team. They do not specify that these should be randomly sampled, so the citation supports piloting at both stages but not the random-sample detail. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • The review followed guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses and the guidance of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group.

    “We followed guidelines from the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (Moher et al., 2009) and the guidance of the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (Garritty et al., 2021).”

    From The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as Garritty et al., 2021

  • One reviewer extracted narrative data from studies, which a second reviewer checked for correctness and completeness.

    “In line with the recommendations of Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group, one reviewer (T.Z.) extracted narrative data from studies, which a second reviewer (S.K.) checked for correctness and completeness (Garritty et al., 2021).”

    From The benefits and harms of community treatment orders for people diagnosed with psychiatric illnesses: A rapid umbrella review of systematic reviews and meta-analyses (2024) · cites this paper as Garritty et al., 2021

  • The review was guided by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods recommendations and PRISMA-ScR.

    “the review itself was guided by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods recommendations [25] and PRISMA-ScR (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses Extension for Scoping Reviews; Multimedia Appendix 1 [26])”

    From Experiences of Using Digital Mindfulness-Based Interventions: Rapid Scoping Review and Thematic Synthesis (2023) · cites this paper as [25]

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • Randomized trial is later described as a metaepidemiological study

    Minor

    The methods describe one of the two RRMG studies as an online randomized controlled trial, whereas the discussion calls both studies metaepidemiological.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

1 of the 37 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A.
Affiliations
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute (CA)
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
  • Canada's Drug Agency (CA)
  • Cochrane Canada (CA)
Corresponding author
Garritty, Chantelle
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Clinical Epidemiology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2021-02
Volume
130
Pages
13-22
ISSN
0895-4356 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
PMC
PMC7557165
OpenAlex
W3092985072
Semantic Scholar
d1ae29467ce3e63c1b2c4c485db6ec81786b66d9
Cited by
1,141
References
37
Citations by year
2026: 149 · 2025: 199 · 2024: 276 · 2023: 234 · 2022: 168 · 2021: 88 · 2020: 26
FWCI
78.66
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Clinical Epidemiology (publishedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Funders
  • Ottawa Hospital Research Institute
  • Donau-Universität Krems
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, evidence synthesis, systematic review methodology, Cochrane Collaboration, decision-making
MeSH terms
Systematic Reviews as Topic, Humans, Surveys and Questionnaires, Research Design, Guidelines as Topic, Research Report

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-07.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-07.

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