CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 260Meta-analysis and systematic reviewsClinical practice guidelines implementationDelphi Technique in Research

Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness

Open access
Garritty, Chantelle, Hamel, Candyce, Trivella, Marialena, Gartlehner, Gerald, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Devane, Declan, Kamel, Chris, Griebler, Ursula +1 more·2024·BMJ
DOI 10.1136/bmj-2023-076335
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This article provides updated guidance on methods for conducting rapid reviews of effectiveness, targeted at Cochrane and other stakeholders interested in the methodology of rapid reviews. The guidance, developed by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group, builds upon previous interim guidance, and incorporates changes based on an evaluation of its application, a scope of the literature on rapid review methodology, and input from a diverse group of experts in rapid review methods. The guidance consists of 24 specific recommendations supporting the conduct of rapid reviews, applicable both within and outside Cochrane. It underscores the importance of considering the appropriateness of undertaking rapid reviews and advocates for a tailored, iterative approach to each review. Key defining features of rapid reviews, such as restricted methods, how the dimension of timelines factors into rapid reviews, and the involvement of knowledge users (eg, patient and public partners, healthcare providers, policy makers), are outlined. The paper presents a definition of a Cochrane rapid review and additional considerations for rapid reviews of effectiveness to enhance the efficiency of the review process. In conclusion, the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group’s updated guidance, complemented by examples, seeks to guide methodological decisions in the design and conduct of rapid reviews, facilitating timely decision making in healthcare.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This article presents updated Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness, comprising 24 recommendations and a refined definition. It emphasizes tailored, iterative use of restricted methods, knowledge-user involvement, and transparency about limitations.

Key findings

  • The updated guidance contains 24 recommendations, replacing the interim guidance’s 26 recommendations, and states that Cochrane rapid reviews should take no longer than six months.
  • An evaluation of the interim guidance analyzed 128 rapid reviews (17 Cochrane and 111 non-Cochrane) and 20 in-depth qualitative interviews; many authors did not follow certain recommendations (e.g., stepwise study inclusion, peer review of search strategies), while some recommendations (e.g., dual independent abstract/full-text screening) were exceeded.
  • A literature scan screened 841 citations and assessed 87 articles; none met the original eligibility criteria, but five studies provided further insights for search recommendations.
  • Key defining features are restricted methods, the dimension of time (not the sole defining feature), and knowledge user involvement; recommendations include using at least two bibliographic databases, PRESS peer review, pilot screening, dual screening of at least 20% of records with κ ≥0.8 before proceeding to single screening, one data extractor plus verification, and GRADE if time and resources allow.

Methods

  • The update builds on the interim Cochrane guidance, a formal evaluation of its real-world use (text analysis of 128 rapid reviews and 20 qualitative interviews), a literature scan from February 2019 to August 2022, and input from a broader expert collaborative including a patient and public partner.
  • The literature scan used PubMed similar-articles features and keyword searches; 841 citations were screened, 87 articles assessed, and five studies informed search recommendations.
  • Guidance development was led by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group, with rationales and examples provided in supplementary files.

Limitations

  • Paper states the guidance was developed within Cochrane and focuses on rapid reviews of effectiveness of health interventions; it has not been adapted to other question types (e.g., diagnostic test accuracy, screening, or rapid qualitative evidence synthesis).
  • Paper states not all stages had corresponding evidence to inform the updated recommendations; many recommendations are based on expert opinion, and best practice is limited by the lack of currently available evidence for some shortcuts.
  • Evident from the text: the evaluation found common non-adherence due to time constraints, unclear recommended approaches, or inapplicability, and the guidance was perceived as challenging to apply without experience conducting systematic reviews; the paper also notes the 20% dual-screening suggestion is based on experience and is not evidence based.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1136/bmj-2023-076335

Cites

57 of 57 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

0 of 51 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingcitation

    For other recommendations, such as dual independent screening of abstracts or full texts, adherence went beyond what was asked.

    “However, some recommendations, such as dual independent screening of abstracts or full texts, were exceeded.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Findingcitation

    A number of authors failed to follow some recommendations, for example the stepwise approach to including studies or peer review of search strategies.

    “Main findings suggested that many authors did not follow certain recommendations, such as the stepwise approach to study inclusion or peer review of search strategies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisecitation

    The covid-19 pandemic drove the rise in rapid reviews, both Cochrane and non-Cochrane, published from 2020 onward.

    “Completion of the guidance coincided with the onset of the covid-19 pandemic, which was the catalyst for the increased number of Cochrane and non-Cochrane rapid reviews conducted and published since 2020.6”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [6] COVID-END. COVID-19 Evidence Network to Support Decisionmaking. 2021. www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/covidend

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Study design and conductcitation

    The update drew on a formal evaluation that examined how well authors followed and understood the interim guidance, and how comprehensible, usable, and useful it was.

    “We have also integrated findings from a formal evaluation conducted to assess authors' adherence to and understanding of the interim Cochrane guidance and the guidance's comprehensibility, usability, and usefulness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Premisenone given

    CENTRAL concentrates many reports of randomised and quasi-randomised controlled trials.

    “This is a highly concentrated source of reports of randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • May combine two claims. 23
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 45

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Frequent reasons given for non-adherence were lack of time, unclear recommendations, or recommendations not fitting particular rapid reviews.

    “Common reasons for not adhering to the guidance included time constraints, unclear recommended approaches, or inapplicability to specific rapid reviews.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    The evaluation analysed the text of 128 rapid reviews (17 from Cochrane, 111 not) and conducted 20 in-depth qualitative interviews.

    “This evaluation included the text analysis of 128 rapid reviews (17 Cochrane and 111 non-Cochrane) and 20 in-depth qualitative interviews.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingcitation

    Users found the guidance easy to use, yet hard to apply without prior experience of doing systematic reviews.

    “Overall, the guidance was considered user friendly, but it was perceived as challenging to apply without experience of conducting systematic reviews.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    No article met the original eligibility criteria, though five studies offered additional insights relevant to the search recommendations.

    “Although none met the original eligibility criteria, five studies provided further insights to the search recommendations.[8][9][10][11][12]”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [8] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [9] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [10] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Findingown data

    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”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Findingnone given

    The updated recommendations altered the search sources used for randomised controlled trial rapid reviews both inside and outside Cochrane, and simplified the study selection process at the title and abstract and the full text screening stages.

    “Noteworthy changes to the updated recommendations include modifications to search sources for both Cochrane and non-Cochrane rapid reviews of randomised controlled trials and for study selection at both the title and abstract and the full text screening stages, where the process has been simplified.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    The article presents updated guidance consisting of 24 recommendations on methods for rapid reviews of effectiveness, produced within Cochrane and beyond, to answer urgent and high priority questions often posed by decision makers.

    “This article offers updated guidance composed of 24 recommendations on methods for conducting rapid reviews of effectiveness produced within Cochrane and beyond to address urgent and high priority questions often requested by decision makers.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Findingnone given

    The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group provides updated, actionable recommendations to support rapid review conduct when evidence is urgently needed.

    “Overall, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers updated, actionable recommendations to support the conduct of rapid reviews when the need for evidence is urgent.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    Not every stage of a rapid review had evidence available to inform the updated recommendation.

    “Although not all stages of a rapid review had corresponding evidence to inform the updated recommendation, as stated”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Findingnone given

    A new section on certainty of evidence was added, separate from the synthesis of results.

    “In addition, a new section on certainty of evidence has been added as a separate element from the synthesis of results.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    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”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [2] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [3] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [4] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    The 2020 Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group interim guidance contained 26 recommendations, each with a rationale for speeding up stages of the review.

    “The original guidance offered 26 recommendations, with accompanying rationales on the steps and considerations for accelerating each part of the review process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [1] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisereasoning

    Commissioners of rapid reviews are usually decision makers seeking answers to pressing health questions, and they often take part in the review.

    “As decision makers typically commission rapid reviews to address specific and pressing health questions, it is common for them to be involved in the process, given the urgent nature of these inquiries.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    A rapid review can follow several methodological routes; no single approach suits all.

    “Additionally, when conducting a rapid review, multiple methodological paths can be taken, and no "one size fits all" approaches can be applied.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    It is misleading to think of rapid reviews as merely systematic reviews carried out more quickly.

    “Importantly, the notion that rapid reviews are simply systematic reviews done faster is misleading.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    Cochrane's definition of a systematic review is that it uses explicit and systematic methods to find, choose, appraise, extract, and analyse data from all relevant studies.

    “Cochrane defines a systematic review as using systematic and explicit methods to identify, select, critically appraise, extract, and analyse data from all relevant research.17”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisenone given

    Rapid reviews likewise apply explicit and systematic methods for appraising, extracting, and analysing data.

    “Rapid reviews also use systematic and explicit methods to appraise, extract, and analyse data.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationcitation

    If authors adhere to rigorous systematic review methods, such as Cochrane's, a review done quickly remains a systematic review.

    “A rapidly conducted systematic review would still be a systematic review if authors followed stringent systematic review methodology, such as methods proposed by Cochrane.17”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [17] Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Medline is often the most relevant database for a rapid review, though not always.

    “In many cases, Medline will be the most relevant database, but this is not always the case.10 43”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [43] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationcitation

    When key knowledge users can be involved, the review may become more relevant and applicable.

    “Although meaningful involvement requires time, resources, and advanced planning given the shortened timelines of rapid reviews, involving key knowledge users when possible can enhance the relevance and applicability of the review and should be encouraged.27 28”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [27] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [28] Involvement in COVID-19 rapid evidence synthesis: training and supporting willing, enthusiastic patient/public partners [webinar]. Evidence Synthesis Ireland. 2022. https://youtu.be/v50bie88Eq4

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Although rapid reviews should be done within a short timeframe, time alone does not define them.

    “Despite the term "rapid" being used for these reviews, time is not the sole defining feature-although rapid reviews should be conducted in a short timeline.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    Rapid reviews commonly adopt methodological restrictions, such as shortcuts or abbreviated methods, in order to speed up the process.

    “Restricted methods-To accelerate the review process, it is typical for rapid reviews to introduce methodological restrictions (shortcuts or abbreviated methods).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    CENTRAL can be accessed at no cost via the Cochrane Library in many parts of the world.

    “In many regions, CENTRAL is free through the Cochrane Library.40”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40] Cochrane. Access options for the Cochrane Library. 2023. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/help/access#:~:text=Cochrane%20and%20Wiley%20provide%20one,Library%20in%20over%20100%20countries

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Distinctions between systematic and rapid reviews in general have been described in earlier publications.

    “General distinctions between systematic reviews and rapid reviews have been published previously.19 20”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [19] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [20] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    If time and resources permit, a team can adopt stricter methods than those recommended and still label the work a rapid review.

    “Teams may use stricter methods, if time and resources allow, and still call it a rapid review, as discussed below.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductown data

    A wider group of rapid review methodologists, beyond the coauthors, gave specific input on the proposed changes to the guidance.

    “Furthermore, we assembled a broader collaborative of rapid review methodologists beyond the coauthor group, who provided specific input on proposed modifications to the guidance.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisereasoning

    In rapid reviews, parts of the systematic review process are restricted or left out, or the scope is narrowed, so that an evidence synthesis can be produced faster.

    “By comparison, however, specific components of the systematic review process are either restricted or omitted or the scope is narrowed for rapid reviews, to provide an evidence synthesis product more quickly.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisenone given

    For specialised topics, searching subject-specific databases such as CINAHL, PsycInfo, or ERIC may be needed.

    “A search of specialised databases (eg, CINAHL, PsycInfo, ERIC) may be necessary for specialised review topics (eg, the use of CINAHL for rapid reviews related to nursing care, PsycInfo for rapid reviews related to mental health, or ERIC for rapid reviews related to educational interventions)”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    For new healthcare interventions, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials may be unavailable, as no RCTs were available for covid-19 early in the pandemic but emerged later.

    “Importantly, systematic reviews and randomised controlled trials may not be available for new healthcare interventions-for example, no randomised controlled trials were available on covid-19 during the early era of the pandemic but emerged as the pandemic evolved.36”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [36] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    CENTRAL is free through the Cochrane Library in many regions.

    “In many regions, CENTRAL is free through the Cochrane Library.40”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [40] Cochrane. Access options for the Cochrane Library. 2023. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/help/access#:~:text=Cochrane%20and%20Wiley%20provide%20one,Library%20in%20over%20100%20countries

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationcitation

    Advances in automation and crowdsourcing have the potential to reduce screening time in rapid reviews.

    “Nonetheless, forthcoming advances in automation (eg, active machine learning) 49 50 and crowdsourcing 8 51 have the potential to reduce screening time when conducting rapid reviews.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [49] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [50] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [8] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Without peer review of the search strategy, many studies are often missed and, unless captured by supplementary searches, would not appear in the published rapid review.

    “Evidence suggests that the absence of peer review of the search strategy often results in many missed studies, and unless captured in accompanying supplementary searches, these studies would not appear in the published rapid review.44”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [44] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    A case study found that extracting data directly from existing systematic reviews saved time and did not change the review results.

    “According to a case study, this approach saved time and did not alter the review results.52”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [52] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Premisecitation

    Medline is often the most relevant database for rapid reviews including nonrandomised studies, though not always.

    “In many cases, Medline will be the most relevant database, but this is not always the case.10 43”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites [10] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [43] source

      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

    The recommendation to screen at least 20% of records is based on the authors' experience and is not evidence based.

    “The suggestion of 20% is based on our experience and is therefore not evidence based.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Excluding non-English publications from systematic reviews of clinical interventions has little effect on overall conclusions and can serve as a viable methodological shortcut for rapid reviews.

    “Research suggests that excluding non-English publications from systematic reviews on clinical interventions has a minimal effect on overall conclusions and can be a viable methodological shortcut for rapid reviews.4”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [4] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductcitation

    The guidance is uniquely based on empirical evidence about rapid review methods, supplemented by expert input and feedback from a formal evaluation of how it was used in practice.

    “Although these other guides are also evidence informed and we encourage their use, our guide is uniquely grounded in empirical evidence evaluating methods of rapid reviews, 12 further enriched by expert input [13][14][15][16] and feedback from a formal evaluation of its real world use.7”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites [12] source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [13][14][15][16]

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites [7] source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Making the review process more efficient, including study selection, data extraction and synthesis, allows rapid reviews to be produced faster.

    “Optimising the review process, including study selection, data extraction, and synthesis of results, enables quicker production of rapid reviews.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The guidance concentrates on how rapid reviews are conducted rather than on their planning, packaging or dissemination.

    “What also distinguishes our guidance is its sharp focus on the conduct of rapid reviews rather than planning, packaging, or dissemination.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Various software tools, such as metadata extraction, automation, screening software and machine learning, could contribute to this optimisation.

    “A variety of software tools, involving extraction of metadata, automation, screening software, and machine learning, have the potential to contribute to this optimisation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    Any future methodological research that informs rapid reviews will also help systematic reviews.

    “Therefore, any future methodological research that informs rapid reviews will also be beneficial for systematic reviews.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Study design and conductreasoning

    The updated guidance builds on the interim guidance and rests on an evaluation of the recommendations as used in real time, on the expertise of a wider group of rapid review experts inside and outside Cochrane, and on a scan of the literature for further rapid review methods publications published since the original recommendations.

    “This guidance builds upon our interim guidance and is based on an evaluation of the recommendations used in real time, the expertise of a broader group of experts in rapid reviews within and external to Cochrane, and a scan of the literature for additional publications on rapid review methods since our recommendations were first published.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Some recommendations are specific to Cochrane rapid reviews because they match Cochrane's standards, procedures and objectives, which do not apply in every rapid review context.

    “Some recommendations are tailored to Cochrane rapid reviews because they align with Cochrane's standards, procedures, and objectives that do not apply to all contexts of rapid reviews.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Collaboration software and live documents also support real time exchange, keeping stakeholders aligned throughout the process.

    “Collaboration software and live documents also facilitate real time exchanges, keeping all stakeholders in alignment throughout the process.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based).

    Interpretationnone given

    Artificial intelligence is likely to advance the overall process for both rapid and systematic reviews further, through intelligent assisted solutions that could speed up and increase the efficiency of many review steps.

    “Looking to the future, the potential of artificial intelligence (AI) will likely further advance the overall process for both rapid reviews and systematic reviews by providing intelligent assisted solutions to potentially speed up and increase efficiency of many review steps.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    A review may still be labelled a rapid review even when some of the recommendations are not followed.

    “Although a multipronged approach, where more than one method restriction is combined, may increase timely production of reviews, users of this guidance can still label a review as a rapid review even if some of the recommendations are not followed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Some recommendations apply more broadly to every methodology and context of rapid review, covering fundamental principles and best practices relevant to all rapid reviews of effectiveness.

    “On the other hand, certain recommendations have broader applicability across all methodologies and contexts of rapid reviews.”
    • Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
      “These recommendations encompass fundamental principles and best practices that are not exclusive to Cochrane but are relevant for all rapid reviews of effectiveness.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing), S4 (based). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationnone given

    Artificial intelligence may also cut errors, improve accuracy, and improve the repeatability and reproducibility of rapid reviews.

    “AI may also reduce errors, improve accuracy, and improve repeatability and reproducibility of rapid reviews.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Interpretationnone given

    The recommended methods in this updated guidance apply widely to anyone conducting a rapid review, even though the guidance is situated within the Cochrane landscape.

    “Although this guidance is heavily posited within the Cochrane landscape, the recommended methods apply widely to anyone conducting a rapid review.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisereasoning

    Cochrane rapid reviews are designed to answer urgent, high priority questions posed by decision makers, a mandate that other guides do not all require.

    “It is also worth noting that Cochrane rapid reviews are explicitly designed to address urgent and high priority questions requested by decision makers, aligning with a specific mandate that not all other guides necessitate.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    These tools are intended to streamline the review process, improve transparency and reproducibility, and reduce reviewer bias.

    “These tools aim to help streamline the review process, enhance transparency and reproducibility, and minimise reviewer bias.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

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

    Interpretationreasoning

    The recommendations are both evidence informed and user informed.

    “Therefore, the recommendations are both evidence informed and user informed.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

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

    Premisecitation

    Cochrane Crowd uses a machine learning platform and crowdsourcing to identify randomised controlled trials.

    “One such example is Cochrane Crowd, which uses a machine learning platform and crowdsourcing to identify randomised controlled trials 8”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites [8] source

      Not checked in the free run.

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

    Interpretationnone given

    Combining more than one method restriction in a multipronged approach may speed up the production of reviews.

    “Although a multipronged approach, where more than one method restriction is combined, may increase timely production of reviews, users of this guidance can still label a review as a rapid review even if some of the recommendations are not followed.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
54 of 54

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The evaluation's findings are representative of the broader community of rapid review authors and reviews.

    “This evaluation included the text analysis of 128 rapid reviews (17 Cochrane and 111 non-Cochrane) and 20 in-depth qualitative interviews.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The literature scan using PubMed similar articles and a keyword search identified the relevant methodological literature published since the initial scoping review.

    “To identify potentially relevant studies, we used the option for similar articles in PubMed for every article included in the initial scoping review.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    CENTRAL is a highly concentrated source of reports of randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials.

    “This is a highly concentrated source of reports of randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    No minimum set of data extraction items exists for study characteristics and outcome data.

    “No minimum set of data extraction items exists for study characteristics and outcome data.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Extracting data directly from a systematic review requires that the review report its included data well.

    “However, extracting data directly from a systematic review requires good reporting of the data included in the review.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Risk of bias assessment informs the interpretation of results.

    “We discourage omitting the risk of bias assessment entirely, as it informs the interpretation of the results.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    RoB 1 assessments are generally quicker and require fewer resources than RoB 2 assessments at the outcome level.

    “RoB 1 assessments are generally quicker and require fewer resources than RoB 2 assessments at the outcome level.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The required detail and granularity of risk of bias assessment may vary across rapid reviews depending on intervention complexity, outcome type, and available data.

    “However, different rapid reviews may require different levels of detail and granularity in the risk of bias assessment that may depend on the specific characteristics of the review, such as the complexity of the interventions, type of outcomes, and available data.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Allowing either RoB 1 or RoB 2 ensures efficient use of resources while maintaining review quality.

    “Allowing either approach ensures an efficient use of available resources while maintaining the quality of the review.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A descriptive summary of included studies at the outset of synthesis helps confirm whether studies are similar and reliable enough to synthesise and whether pooling is possible.

    “Providing a descriptive summary of the included studies at the outset of the synthesis stage helps to confirm if the studies are similar and reliable enough to synthesise and if it is possible to pool results.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When meta-analysis is possible, a descriptive summary of the contributing body of evidence is needed to fully interpret the collective evidence.

    “If a meta-analysis is possible, a descriptive summary of the body of evidence contributing to the meta-analysis is needed to interpret the collective evidence fully.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    When data are sufficient for meta-analysis, systematic review standards apply equally to rapid reviews, and meta-analysis depends on the type of data and information in individual studies.

    “If data are sufficient to consider a meta-analysis, the standards for a systematic review equally apply to a rapid review; meta-analysis will depend on the type of data and information provided in the individual studies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The depth and details of analysis vary with the volume and type of included studies.

    “The depth and details of analysis will vary depending on the volume and type of included studies.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Describing restricted methods and potential sources of bias or uncertainty from methodological restrictions enables end users to better assess the validity and reliability of a rapid review.

    “Describing the restricted methods used and pinpointing potential sources of bias or uncertainty in the findings resulting from methodological restrictions, enables end users to better assess the validity and reliability of the rapid review.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Describing restricted methods helps determine whether the methods were appropriate for the research question, population, and context.

    “This includes determining whether the methods were appropriate for the specific research question, studied population, and context being investigated.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Describing restricted methods puts results in perspective and helps limit overgeneralisation or unwarranted conclusions.

    “Additionally, this process serves to put the results in perspective, given the restrictions imposed by the methods of rapid reviews, helping to limit overgeneralisation of results or unwarranted conclusions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Changes to the review protocol are sometimes necessary after a rapid review has started.

    “Sometimes, changes to the review protocol are necessary once a rapid review has started.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Online systematic review software enhances collaboration through real-time project management and multiuser participation across geographical boundaries.

    “Online systematic review software enhances collaboration by allowing real time project management and multiuser participation across geographical boundaries.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Systematic review software enables rapid review team members to work in parallel across all stages and provides a fully transparent process.

    “Importantly, the software enables members of the rapid review team to work in parallel across all stages of the review, and it provides a fully transparent process.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Systematic review software facilitates incorporating protocol amendments and other post hoc changes during a rapid review.

    “It also facilitates the incorporation of protocol amendments and other post hoc changes that may be needed during the conduct of a rapid review.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Software use increases efficiency through automated collation of screening results.

    “The use of software also increases efficiency through the automated collation of the screening results (inclusions and exclusions).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Close communication with information specialists and clinical experts helps set informed date limits.

    “Besides, close communication with information specialists and clinical experts will help to set informed date limits.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Information specialists can assist in selecting appropriate search methods and resources, defining search limits, designing and executing search strategies, and reporting the search methods.

    “Information specialists can assist in selecting appropriate search methods and resources, defining search limits, designing and executing search strategies, and reporting the search methods.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    For some topics, a search of grey literature may be more important than a search of conventional databases.

    “For some topics, however, a search of grey literature may be more important than a search of conventional databases.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The proportion of records for dual screening may differ depending on number of records, resources, complexity, and reviewers' experience.

    “The proportion may differ depending on the number of records to be screened, available resources, complexity of the review topic, and reviewers' experience.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    A pilot exercise allows discussion of unclear abstracts and identification of potential difficulties in study selection.

    “This pilot exercise also allows a discussion of unclear abstracts and identification of potential difficulties in the study selection process.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Using a data extraction form helps identify misunderstandings early and reduce disagreements during data verification.

    “This should help to identify misunderstandings early on and should reduce disagreements during the data verification step (see recommendation 12).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Many established steps in the systematic review process also rest on evidence that is limited, outdated or unavailable.

    “we know that many established steps in the systematic review process are also based on evidence that is limited, outdated, or not available.”
28 of 28

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?

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.

  • Data-verification instruction cites the wrong recommendation

    Minor

    Recommendation 11 concerns piloting data extraction. The instruction to have a second person verify critical data is Recommendation 12, not Recommendation 11.

1 of 1

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Cochrane. Access options for the Cochrane Library. 2023. https://www.cochranelibrary.com/help/access#:~:text=Cochrane%20and%20Wiley%20provide%20one,Library%20in%20over%20100%20countries
  2. Lefebvre C, Glanville J, Briscoe S, et al. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston MS, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (eds). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 6.3 (updated February 2022). Cochrane, 2022. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-04-technical-supplement-searching-and-selecting-studies
  3. Dobbins M. Steps for conducting a rapid review. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, McMaster University, 2017;25.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Garritty, C., Hamel, C., Trivella, M., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Devane, D., Kamel, C., Griebler, U., & King, V. J.
Affiliations
  • University of Ottawa (CA)
  • Universität für Weiterbildung Krems (AT)
  • Ollscoil na Gaillimhe – University of Galway (IE)
  • Canada's Drug Agency (CA)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Garritty, Chantelle
ORCID
Venue
BMJ
Publisher
BMJ
Published
2024-02-06
Volume
384
Pages
e076335
ISSN
1756-1833 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1136/bmj-2023-076335
OpenAlex
W4391563803
Semantic Scholar
4fc324c648a4c6b286afb745c898d1f1efbcbce0
Cited by
260
References
56
Citations by year
2026: 120 · 2025: 111 · 2024: 29
FWCI
72.05
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • BMJ (publishedVersion, other-oa)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • HighWire Press Open Archive (submittedVersion)
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, review methodology, evidence synthesis, knowledge users, patient and public involvement, healthcare decision-making
MeSH terms
Humans, Review Literature as Topic, Evidence-Based Medicine

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