The DOI matches its Crossref record; 57 of the 57 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; 2 of the 51 sources its claims cite were checked for support.
Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness
Open accessAbstract
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.
Overview
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
Cites
Statistics
Verification
Claims the paper makes
32 Not checked yet · 21 Own interpretation · 12 No basis given · 3 Own method · 1 Supported so far · accuracy not yet measured
The sources with a verdict support this claim; the rest weren’t checked yet, have no full text we could read, or their verdicts aren’t rated yet.
In the paper
“Several examples have been published where the GRADE approach has been used for rapid reviews.[61][62][63]”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Certainty of the evidence Recommendation 21: Use the GRADE approach to assess certainty of evidence if time and resources allow
What the sources say
- Supportedcites [61] source
The paper identifies itself in its title as a GRADE rapid review. Its Methods section (“Quality of the evidence-GRADE approach”) states that the authors used GRADE to evaluate the quality of evidence, so it serves as one published example cited in the sentence. (LLM, conf=0.93)
- Not checked yetcites [62] source
- Could not verifycites [63] sourceExperimental — accuracy not yet measured
The Methods section mentions published examples of rapid or urgent recommendations, not examples of GRADE being used in rapid reviews. The Results section says a rapid review could be conducted but that the proposed approach did not consider new rapid reviews. Searching for published GRADE rapid-review examples found no passage establishing the claim. (LLM, conf=0.74)
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- Supported
In the paper
“However, some recommendations, such as dual independent screening of abstracts or full texts, were exceeded.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [6] COVID-END. COVID-19 Evidence Network to Support Decisionmaking. 2021. www.mcmasterforum.org/networks/covidend
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“This is a highly concentrated source of reports of randomised controlled trials and quasi-randomised controlled trials.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane rapid review recommendations
boosted- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Timelines across the reviews vary, however, depending on several factors, including the complexity of the topic or the urgency of the decision making to meet timelines, which are often short out of necessity.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
In the paper
“However, the involvement of key knowledge users (eg, patient and public partners, healthcare providers, and policy makers) is often limited, omitted, or not reported.26”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Expert opinion Synthesis 17 Provide a descriptive summary of the included studies Expert opinion 18 Provide a synthesis of the findings Expert opinion 19 Consider a meta-analysis if appropriate and resources permit
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [26] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“as CENTRAL is currently only updated once a month 9 39 42”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane rapid review recommendations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [9] source
- Not checked yetcites [39] source
- Not checked yetcites [42] 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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, as rapid reviews might not include all relevant studies, they may be less comprehensive.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
- It may state two separate claims as one. 23
- Probably not a substantial claim. 45
In the paper
“Common reasons for not adhering to the guidance included time constraints, unclear recommended approaches, or inapplicability to specific rapid reviews.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“This evaluation included the text analysis of 128 rapid reviews (17 Cochrane and 111 non-Cochrane) and 20 in-depth qualitative interviews.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“Overall, the guidance was considered user friendly, but it was perceived as challenging to apply without experience of conducting systematic reviews.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [7] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“Although none met the original eligibility criteria, five studies provided further insights to the search recommendations.[8][9][10][11][12]”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Methods
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Methods
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [2] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Conclusions
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although not all stages of a rapid review had corresponding evidence to inform the updated recommendation, as stated”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“In addition, a new section on certainty of evidence has been added as a separate element from the synthesis of results.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the 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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Introduction
What the sources say
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“The original guidance offered 26 recommendations, with accompanying rationales on the steps and considerations for accelerating each part of the review process.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Introduction
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [1] source
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
plaincorrelational- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Additionally, when conducting a rapid review, multiple methodological paths can be taken, and no "one size fits all" approaches can be applied.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Importantly, the notion that rapid reviews are simply systematic reviews done faster is misleading.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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.
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Rapid reviews also use systematic and explicit methods to appraise, extract, and analyse data.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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.
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In many cases, Medline will be the most relevant database, but this is not always the case.10 43”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Topic refinement-setting the research question
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Expert opinion Synthesis 17 Provide a descriptive summary of the included studies Expert opinion 18 Provide a synthesis of the findings Expert opinion 19 Consider a meta-analysis if appropriate and resources permit
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [27] source
- Not checked yetcites [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
plainconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Restricted methods-To accelerate the review process, it is typical for rapid reviews to introduce methodological restrictions (shortcuts or abbreviated methods).”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
In the paper
“In many regions, CENTRAL is free through the Cochrane Library.40”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane rapid review recommendations
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“General distinctions between systematic reviews and rapid reviews have been published previously.19 20”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Teams may use stricter methods, if time and resources allow, and still call it a rapid review, as discussed below.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Furthermore, we assembled a broader collaborative of rapid review methodologists beyond the coauthor group, who provided specific input on proposed modifications to the guidance.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Methods
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Cochrane methods guidance considerations
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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)”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Topic refinement-setting the research question
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Recommendation 3: Clearly define the eligibility criteria, including any restrictions or limits
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [36] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: unclear — It is unclear whether the paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“In many regions, CENTRAL is free through the Cochrane Library.40”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Searching Recommendation 4: Involve an information specialist to develop the search strategy, and consider search methods, resources, and search limits
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [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
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Recommendation 6: Use the PRESS checklist to peer review the primary search strategy
What the sources say
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
In the paper
“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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Recommendation 6: Use the PRESS checklist to peer review the primary search strategy
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [44] source
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“According to a case study, this approach saved time and did not alter the review results.52”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Recommendation 13: When available, extract data directly from existing systematic reviews rather than from primary studies
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [52] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“In many cases, Medline will be the most relevant database, but this is not always the case.10 43”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Searching Recommendation 4: Involve an information specialist to develop the search strategy, and consider search methods, resources, and search limits
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“The suggestion of 20% is based on our experience and is therefore not evidence based.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Recommendation 6: Use the PRESS checklist to peer review the primary search strategy
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Recommendation 3: Clearly define the eligibility criteria, including any restrictions or limits
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [4] source
hedged- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
None of the sources cited for this claim have been checked yet.
In the paper
“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”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
What the sources say
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Optimising the review process, including study selection, data extraction, and synthesis of results, enables quicker production of rapid reviews.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“What also distinguishes our guidance is its sharp focus on the conduct of rapid reviews rather than planning, packaging, or dissemination.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“A variety of software tools, involving extraction of metadata, automation, screening software, and machine learning, have the potential to contribute to this optimisation.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, any future methodological research that informs rapid reviews will also be beneficial for systematic reviews.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
hedgeddirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
What the paper did — it cites no source for this, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Collaboration software and live documents also facilitate real time exchanges, keeping all stakeholders in alignment throughout the process.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: fails — It may be too vague to check against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may be too vague to check against evidence. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
- Also stated in: § Discussion · plain
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“AI may also reduce errors, improve accuracy, and improve repeatability and reproducibility of rapid reviews.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: fails — The paper may give no reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. The paper may give no reason why it holds. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Although this guidance is heavily posited within the Cochrane landscape, the recommended methods apply widely to anyone conducting a rapid review.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim.
The paper states this without a source or data behind it here, so there is nothing to check it against. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“These tools aim to help streamline the review process, enhance transparency and reproducibility, and minimise reviewer bias.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it. It may state two separate claims as one.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“Therefore, the recommendations are both evidence informed and user informed.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
plain- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: passes — The paper’s conclusions depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. It may state two separate claims as one.
In the paper
“One such example is Cochrane Crowd, which uses a machine learning platform and crowdsourcing to identify randomised controlled trials 8”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Incorporate the use of systematic review software to streamline the process
What the sources say
- Not checked yetcites [8] source
plaindirect- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
A conclusion the paper draws from its own results — it cites no other source for it, so there is none to check. The quote shows it is in the paper.
In the paper
“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.”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Discussion
hedgedconditional- Asserted: passes — The authors put it forward as true.
- Checkable: passes — It can be checked against evidence.
- Load-bearing: fails — The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
- Based: passes — The paper gives a reason why it holds.
Probably not a substantial claim. The paper’s conclusions may not depend on it.
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.”
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?
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“The review followed the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance, 22 with results reported in accordance with PRISMA 2020 standards.23”
From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
The cited source says what the claim attributes to it.
In the citing paper
“we dual-screened 30% of titles and abstracts to assess reviewer agreement before proceeding with single-reviewer screening of the remaining records.”
From Large Language Models in Pharmacist-Led Direct Patient Care: A Rapid Review of Published Evaluations (2026) · cites this paper as [22]
In the citing paper
“Inclusions were screened and extracted in a two-staged process following a modified rapid review approach97.”
From The ethics of ChatGPT in medicine and healthcare: a systematic review on large language models (LLMs) (2024) · cites this paper as [97]
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.
Rated minor: it would not touch a result — a value no result rests on, a p-value that stays on the same side of the significance level, or a conflict that is clerical, resolved elsewhere in the paper, or outside its own findings.
In the paper
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Recommendation 13: When available, extract data directly from existing systematic reviews rather than from primary studies
“As stated in Recommendation 11, a second person should check the critical data extracted from the systematic review for completeness and correctness”
§ Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness > Recommendation 10: Limit data extraction to only the most important data fields relevant to address the review question
“Recommendation 12: Have one person extract the data, and for critical data that can affect the results or conclusions, have a second person verify the data for accuracy and completeness”
Citations
Cites
The PRISMA 2020 statement: An updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews
Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., Shamseer, L., Tetzlaff, J. M., Akl, E. A., Brennan, S. E., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n71 · Cited by 108,283
A Coefficient of Agreement for Nominal Scales
Cohen, J. (1960) · Educational and Psychological Measurement · doi:10.1177/001316446002000104 · Cited by 42,398
RoB 2: a revised tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Sterne, J. A. C., Savović, J., Page, M. J., Elbers, R. G., Blencowe, N. S., Boutron, I., Cates, C. J., Cheng, H.-Y., Corbett, M. S., Eldridge, S. M., et al. (2019) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l4898 · Cited by 34,787
The Cochrane Collaboration's tool for assessing risk of bias in randomised trials
Higgins, J. P. T., Altman, D. G., Gotzsche, P. C., Juni, P., Moher, D., Oxman, A. D., Savovic, J., Schulz, K. F., Weeks, L., Sterne, J. A. C., et al. (2011) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.d5928 · Cited by 33,817
ROBINS-I: a tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions
Sterne, J. A., Hernán, M. A., Reeves, B. C., Savović, J., Berkman, N. D., Viswanathan, M., Henry, D., Altman, D. G., Ansari, M. T., Boutron, I., et al. (2016) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919 · Cited by 20,329
Interrater reliability: The kappa statistic
McHugh, M. L. (2012) · Biochemia Medica · doi:10.11613/bm.2012.031 · Cited by 19,877
Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A., Petticrew, M., Shekelle, P., Stewart, L. A., & the PRISMA-P Group (2015) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.g7647 · Cited by 13,120 · cited 2×
“See the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA-P) for reporting of rapid review protocols 32 and PRIMSA-S for searches.”
BackgroundMethodShea, B. J., Reeves, B. C., Wells, G., Thuku, M., Hamel, C., Moran, J., Moher, D., Tugwell, P., Welch, V., Kristjansson, E., et al. (2017) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008 · Cited by 10,636
Self-citationPRESS 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 · cited 4×
“37 If the use of PRESS is not possible, at a minimum the search strategies should be double checked for typographical or spelling errors, missed keywords, and correct use of Boolean operators (AND, OR, NOT).”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSynthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline
Campbell, M., McKenzie, J. E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S. V., Brennan, S. E., Ellis, S., Hartmann-Boyce, J., Ryan, R., Shepperd, S., Thomas, J., et al. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.l6890 · Cited by 4,628 · cited 1×
“58 Recommendation 19: Consider a meta-analysis if appropriate and resources permit 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…”
Background
Research works printed but not linked: 3
- 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
- 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
- Dobbins M. Steps for conducting a rapid review. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools, McMaster University, 2017;25.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Haltaufderheide, J., & Ranisch, R. (2024) · npj Digital Medicine · doi:10.1038/s41746-024-01157-x · Cited by 396
Synthesis Methods and Reporting Tool (SMART) for Research Syntheses in Applied Linguistics
Chong, S. W. (2025) · Research Synthesis in Applied Linguistics · doi:10.1080/29984475.2025.2456880 · Cited by 88
Current trends and future implications in the utilization of ChatGPT in nursing: a rapid review
Kleib, M., Darko, E. M., Akingbade, O., Kennedy, M., Majekodunmi, P., Nickel, E., & Vogelsang, L. (2024) · International Journal of Nursing Studies Advances · doi:10.1016/j.ijnsa.2024.100252 · Cited by 40
“…Review Methods Group (Garritty et al., 2024), which included (1) topic refinement - setting the research question, (2) topic refinement - setting the eligibility criteria, (3) searches, (4) study selection, (5) data extraction, (6) risk of bias assessment, and (7) synthesis (Garritty et al., 2024).”
InfluentialKey concepts in rapid reviews: an overview
Devane, D., Hamel, C., Gartlehner, G., Nußbaumer-Streit, B., Griebler, U., Affengruber, L., Saif‐Ur‐Rahman, K., & Garritty, C. (2024) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111518 · Cited by 38
Self-citationCarras, M. C., Aljuboori, D., Shi, J. C., Date, M., Karkoub, F., Ortiz, K. G., Abreha, F. M., & Thrul, J. (2024) · Journal of Medical Internet Research · doi:10.2196/59968 · Cited by 46
“As this was designed to be a rapid review, we deferred some elements that are common in other types of reviews (eg, double data extraction, contacting authors for missing data, performing meta-analyses or otherwise evaluating effect sizes, and conducting a formal risk-of-bias assessment [64]).”
Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review
Garritty, C., Nußbaumer-Streit, B., Hamel, C., & Devane, D. (2024) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112722 · Cited by 27
“RRs emerge as a distinct and valuable option when there is an immediate need for evidence, and other methods cannot adequately balance timeliness with the breadth and depth of a traditional SR. General distinctions between SRs and RRs, and other types of evidence syntheses have been previously published.”
BackgroundMethodInfluentialSelf-citationGreenhalgh, T., & McKee, M. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2025-084613 · Cited by 26
Campbell, F., Sutton, A., Pollock, D., Garritty, C., Tricco, A. C., Schmidt, L., & Khalil, H. (2025) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112389 · Cited by 31
Self-citationGanggayah, M. D., Zhao, D., Liew, E. J. Y., Nor, N. A. M., Paramasivam, T., Lee, Y. Y., Hasan, N. I. A., & Shaharuddin, S. (2025) · Asian Journal of Psychiatry · doi:10.1016/j.ajp.2025.104498 · Cited by 20
Ma, K., Cavanagh, M., Zhang, J., & Chutiyami, M. (2025) · Educational Research Review · doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2025.100701 · Cited by 19
Borek, A., Roleston, C., Lazzarino, R., Cooray, M., Hayward, G., Roberts, N. W., Blandford, E., Fowler, T., & Tonkin-Crine, S. K. (2025) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-025-21773-w · Cited by 18
Extreme heat preparedness and coping among older adults: A rapid review
Doherty, F., Rao, S., Traver, A., & Dabelko‐Schoeny, H. (2025) · PLOS Climate · doi:10.1371/journal.pclm.0000689 · Cited by 17
Effectiveness of 234 interventions to improve life satisfaction: A rapid systematic review
Tiley, K., Crellin, R., Domun, T., Harkness, F., & Blodgett, J. M. (2024) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2024.117662 · Cited by 16
Patrick, R., Noy, S., McKew, M., Lee, S., Kanda, M., Edwards, S., Ali, A., & Bowen, K. (2025) · Health & Place · doi:10.1016/j.healthplace.2025.103435 · Cited by 13
Area-Level socioeconomic disadvantage and access to primary care: A rapid review
Staloff, J. A., Morenz, A. M., Hayes, S., Bhatia-Lin, A., & Liao, J. M. (2025) · Health Affairs Scholar · doi:10.1093/haschl/qxaf066 · Cited by 14
“22 We incorporated observational cohort and cross-sectional studies that examined the association between ADI and/or SVI as the primary exposure or mediator and primary care access as either the primary or secondary outcome.”
Doerwald, F., Stalling, I., Recke, C., Busse, H., Shrestha, R., Rach, S., & Bammann, K. (2024) · Frontiers in Public Health · doi:10.3389/fpubh.2024.1461422 · Cited by 16
Albuquerque, A. L. B., dos Santos, G. G., Sadok, S. H., Antonello, B. B., de Jesus, L. M., Carvalho, M. O., Mutarelli², A. M., & Ribeiro, P. V. Z. (2025) · American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.64146 · Cited by 14
Gartlehner, G., Nußbaumer-Streit, B., Hamel, C., Garritty, C., Griebler, U., King, V. J., Devane, D., & Kamel, C. (2025) · Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods · doi:10.1002/cesm.70063 · Cited by 12
“For instance, Cochrane guidance for rapid reviews recommends switching to single ‐ reviewer screening if inter ‐ rater agreement during dual screening of abstracts is high [16, 17], which will likely miss some eligible studies [18].”
Self-citationWale, A., Everitt, J. D., Ayres, T., Okolie, C., Morgan, H., Shaw, H., Cooper, A., Edwards, A., & Lewis, R. A. (2025) · JMIR Aging · doi:10.2196/70377 · Cited by 12
Utilization of backward design in health professional education: A rapid review
Rinaldi, K., Messer, M., Hanson, A. R. M., & Chan, J. (2025) · Journal of Professional Nursing · doi:10.1016/j.profnurs.2025.02.004 · Cited by 11
Pollard, J., Agnew, E., Pearce‐Smith, N., Pouwels, K. B., Salant, N., & Robotham, J. V. (2025) · Journal of Hospital Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2025.01.006 · Cited by 10
Scoping review of evidence synthesis: Concepts, types and methods
Trapé, C. A., Campos, C. M. S., Oliveira, C. D. F., da Silva, J. G. S. T., Uchimura, L. Y. T., Figueiró, M. F., de Bortoli, M. C., Domingues, S. M., & Yonekura, T. (2025) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0323555 · Cited by 19
“While reference inventory primarily focus on cataloging relevant literature [7,8], summary of abstracts, rapid reviews and technical-scientific report employ streamlined methodologies to expedite the synthesis process [20,21].”
Voorheis, P., Wong, J. V., Lazarevic, N., Imtiaz, B., Bhuiya, A. R., & Gray, C. S. (2025) · Journal of Diabetes Science and Technology · doi:10.1177/19322968251334396 · Cited by 15
Thomson, G., & Nowland, R. A. (2024) · Midwifery · doi:10.1016/j.midw.2024.104185 · Cited by 8
Shand, J., Stovold, E. M., Goulding, L., & Cheema, K. (2024) · BMC Cancer · doi:10.1186/s12885-024-13096-7 · Cited by 8
“…with colorectal cancer ( N = 7), lung cancer ( N = 7), multiple myeloma ( N = 6), oesophageal or gastric cancers ( N = 4), mixed populations [4], urothelial carcinoma ( N = 3), oral cancer ( N = 2), prostate cancer ( N = 2), and one study each for breast cancer, cervical cancer,…”
BackgroundGanbold, G., Farnaz, N., Scutts, T., Borg, B., & Mihrshahi, S. (2025) · Maternal and Child Nutrition · doi:10.1111/mcn.70042 · Cited by 14
“This rapid review was conducted according to the updated recommendations from the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Groups (Garritty et al. 2024).”
How AI-Based Digital Rehabilitation Improves End-User Adherence: Rapid Review
MohammadNamdar, M., Wilson, M. L., Murtonen, K.-P., Aartolahti, E. M., Oduor, M., & Korniloff, K. (2025) · JMIR Rehabilitation and Assistive Technologies · doi:10.2196/69763 · Cited by 15
“This review is in compliance with the updated recommendations for the Cochrane RR methods guidance and the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) recommendations (Checklist 1) [24,26].”
InfluentialSeidl, K., Wahl, A., Rojatz, D., Affengruber, L., Sommer, I., Klerings, I., Gugglberger, L., Nash, R., Mahr-Slotawa, J., & Griebler, U. (2025) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/16094069251346879 · Cited by 8
“%) dually (two independent screeners), and to then proceed with single-reviewer screening as rapid review methods suggest (Garritty et al., 2024).”
Self-citationImpact of physician assistants on quality of care: rapid review
Cooper, N. S., Agius, S. J., Freeman, K., Church, H., Yoosoof, F., Frain, A., Frain, J., McConnell, R., Wilson, E. E., & Leonardi‐Bee, J. (2025) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2025-086358 · Cited by 8
“27 Rapid reviews can be enhanced with additional steps included to reduce bias, and they have been found to identify the same studies as systematic reviews.”
King, V. J., Nußbaumer-Streit, B., Shaw, B., Devane, D., Kahwati, L. C., Viswanathan, M., & Gartlehner, G. (2024) · BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine · doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2023-112617 · Cited by 7
Self-citationMindfulness-based approaches to problematic technology use: A scoping review
Thomas, J., Al-Beyahi, F., Carras, M. C., Aljuboori, D., Alomairah, S. A., & Thrul, J. (2025) · Computers in Human Behavior Reports · doi:10.1016/j.chbr.2025.100653 · Cited by 6
Sciurti, A., Migliara, G., Siena, L. M., Isonne, C., Blasiis, M. R. D., Sinopoli, A., Iera, J., Marzuillo, C., Vito, C. D., Villari, P., et al. (2025) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1017/rsm.2025.10044 · Cited by 10
“58,59 However, for this approach to be fully reliable, LLMs must show perfect sensitivity—otherwise, relevant records may be permanently missed.”
Adamu, A. A., Jalo, R. I., Masresha, B., Ndwandwe, D. E., & Wiysonge, C. S. (2024) · Vaccines · doi:10.3390/vaccines12080896 · Cited by 12
“A rapid review was conducted based on the guidance of the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group [34].”
MethodSalinas, C. H., Wolfgang, C. L., & Habib, J. R. (2025) · Journal of Hepato-Biliary-Pancreatic Sciences · doi:10.1002/jhbp.12150 · Cited by 7
Iverson, T., Alfares, H., Nijjar, G. S., Wong, J., Abbasi, E., Esfandiari, E., Lin, M., Petrella, R. J., Symes, B., Chudyk, A. M., et al. (2024) · PLOS Global Public Health · doi:10.1371/journal.pgph.0004071 · Cited by 6
Cooke, S., Nelson, D., Argin, A. A., Laparidou, D., Young, R. H., Waller, J., Kane, R., McInnerney, D., Quaife, S. L., Peake, M. D., et al. (2025) · Lung Cancer · doi:10.1016/j.lungcan.2025.108484 · Cited by 8
Truhan, T. E., McMahon, J., Courtney, A. E., Gill, P., Mansell, H., Noble, H. R., Reid, J., Rosaasen, N., Wood, A., & McKeaveney, C. (2025) · BMC Nephrology · doi:10.1186/s12882-025-04116-0 · Cited by 5
“Although the current review has several strengths, including adherence to Cochrane Rapid Review guidance [29, 30], incorporating a wide range of perspectives on LDKT, and use of thematic mapping to generate recommendations for LDKT education, there are some limitations.”
Dharmayani, P. N. A., Todd, A., Dam, J., Chau, J. Y., Wardak, S., Champion, K. E., Mihrshahi, S., & Partridge, S. R. (2025) · Health Literacy and Communication Open · doi:10.1080/28355245.2025.2489394 · Cited by 6
Iverson, T., Schulze, M., Gill, K., Switkowski, Y., dos Santos, Í. K., & Ashe, M. C. (2025) · Archives of Gerontology and Geriatrics · doi:10.1016/j.archger.2025.106022 · Cited by 6
Färnqvist, K., Mälberg, K., Johnsson, S. I., Johar, A. M., Schandl, A. R., Ringborg, C. H., & Lagergren, P. (2025) · Diseases of the Esophagus · doi:10.1093/dote/doaf086 · Cited by 5
MacKay, M., Kukan, A., & McWhirter, J. E. (2025) · Digital Health · doi:10.1177/20552076251393302 · Cited by 5
“28 A rapid review streamlines the process of a systematic review to produce results in a more time-and resource-effective manner.”
Lenacapavir as pre-exposure prophylaxis for HIV prevention
Ebrahim, S., Gloeck, N. R., Adam, Z., Tatz, G., Nel, J. S., Sinxadi, P., Dawood, H., Kredo, T., & Cohen, K. (2026) · Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews · doi:10.1002/14651858.cd016347 · Cited by 4
Marteau, T. M., Mantzari, E., & Hollands, G. J. (2025) · Social Science & Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.socscimed.2025.118004 · Cited by 6
Ablakimova, N., Rachina, S. A., de Silva, H. R., Vlasenko, A. E., Smagulova, G., Mussina, A. Z., Sakhanova, S., Zhylkybekova, A., Tleumagambetova, B., Karimoldayeva, D., et al. (2025) · European Journal of Clinical Microbiology & Infectious Diseases · doi:10.1007/s10096-025-05122-8 · Cited by 5
“Study type: Following the guidelines of the Cochrane Effective Practice and Organization of Care (EPOC) [ 16], the study included the following designs: randomized clinical trials (RCTs), cluster-randomized clinical trials (C-RCTs), non-randomized clinical trials (NRCTs), controlled before-after…”
Freitas, E., Loura, D. D. S., Inês, M., Martins, C., & Duarte, I. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13040413 · Cited by 6
“Thus, this rapid review was conducted taking into account the approach preconized in the literature and by following the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness [21].”
Lewis, R. A., Cooper, A., Jarrom, D., Mann, M. K., Law, R., Edwards, D. J., Carrier, J., Shaw, H., Winfield, T., Spencer, L. H., et al. (2025) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-025-01297-w · Cited by 5
“The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group advo-cates that the essential element to success is early and ongoing engagement with the research requester to focus the rapid review and ensure that it is appropriate to the needs of stakeholders [7, 30, 33].”
Adams, K., Taliano, J. M., Okorie, I., Alvendia, M., Patel, P., Garg, S., & Chang, L. W. (2025) · Human Vaccines & Immunotherapeutics · doi:10.1080/21645515.2025.2481005 · Cited by 4
Prowse, S. R., Treweek, S. P., Brazzelli, M. G., & Bruhn, H. (2025) · Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice · doi:10.1111/jep.70147 · Cited by 4
“We conducted a rapid review informed by methodological guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group with an emphasis on maintaining systematic, transparent and reproducible methods through an accelerated review process [10].”
Measuring Fatigue in Multiple Sclerosis: A Rapid Review
Namsrai, T., Parkinson, A., Burns, R. A., Herkes, G., Elisha, M., Chisholm, K., Drew, J., Fanning, V., Brüstle, A., Suominen, H., et al. (2025) · Patient · doi:10.1007/s40271-025-00759-1 · Cited by 5
“We performed an integrated rapid review of the literature in accordance with the principles recommended by the WHO and Cochrane [14, 15].”
Ali, A., Essilini, A., Daunt, A., Flood, M., McCarthy, C., Strawbridge, J., Clyne, B., & Moriarty, F. (2025) · Research in Social and Administrative Pharmacy · doi:10.1016/j.sapharm.2025.11.009 · Cited by 4
Albuquerque, A. L. B., Dacoregio, M. I., Rodrigues, C. G., Bertola, D. R., & Ribeiro, P. V. Z. (2025) · Genetics in Medicine · doi:10.1016/j.gim.2025.101670 · Cited by 4
Lee, J., Barnett, P., Goldsmith, L. P., Yang, J., Appleton, R., Lloyd‐Evans, B., Hahn, J. S., Rich, N., Francis, E., Mitchell, L., et al. (2026) · BMC Medicine · doi:10.1186/s12916-026-04617-1 · Cited by 4
Identifying prior evidence for new trials (REVEAL): guidance for clinical researchers
Griebler, U., Ledinger, D., Klerings, I., Schandelmaier, S., Dobrescu, A. I., Deschodt, M., McLennan, S., Hemkens, L. G., Nußbaumer-Streit, B., & Briel, M. (2026) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj-2024-083718 · Cited by 4
Self-citationKellner, P., Ngo, C. L., Bedi, G., Garivaldis, F., Tsering, D., Delafosse, V., & Bos, J. J. (2026) · Environmental Education Research · doi:10.1080/13504622.2026.2646870 · Cited by 5
“Rapid reviews speed ‘…up the ways we plan, do, and/or share the results of conventional structured (systematic) reviews, by simplifying or omitting a variety of methods that should be clearly defined by the authors’ (Garritty et al. 2024, 3).”
Milroy, H., Jackson, H., Betts, T., Buckley-Kickett, L., Delane, L., Cayley, G., Morrison, R., Lipscombe, T., Kashyap, S., Collova, J. R., et al. (2026) · First Nations Health and Wellbeing - The Lowitja Journal · doi:10.1016/j.fnhli.2026.100125 · Cited by 4
Corrin, T., & Kennedy, E. B. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0314657 · Cited by 4
“While there is existing guidance and standards on how to conduct a rapid review [34, 35], this was not uniformly implemented within the community, as shown in this study.”
The Impact of Social Determinants on Pancreatic Cancer Care in the United States
Patel, S., Habib, J. R., Hewitt, D. B., Kluger, M. D., Morgan, K. A., Javed, A. A., Wolfgang, C. L., & Sacks, G. D. (2025) · Cancers · doi:10.3390/cancers17121898 · Cited by 6
“One reviewer (SNP) screened the remaining studies following the rapid review methodology [10,11].”
Madeira, R., Esteves, D., Maia, A., Alves, A. R., Marques, D. L., & Neiva, H. P. (2024) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13010033 · Cited by 4
Patients’ Values and Preferences Regarding the Pharmacologic Treatment of Acute Episodic Migraine
Thaler, K. J., Neubauer-Bruckner, C., Feyertag, J., Gadinger, A., Persad, E., Chapman, A. L., Wagner, G., Klerings, I., & Gartlehner, G. (2025) · Annals of Internal Medicine · doi:10.7326/annals-24-02203 · Cited by 4
“We followed the guidance provided by the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (8).”
Self-citationAre Economic Evaluations of Task Shifting Too Narrow in Focus? A Rapid Review
Murphy, P. J., Griffin, S. C., Fulbright, H., & Walker, S. (2025) · PharmacoEconomics · doi:10.1007/s40273-025-01507-x · Cited by 3
“We used the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) 2020 [58] checklist and the updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance [59] to aid reporting, the results of which are in the Electronic Supplementary Material (ESM).”
Presenteeism and Burnout in Nurses: A Review of the Literature
Vaz, A. C., Vermelho, M., Silva, M., Costa, P., Dinis, S. M. M., Severino, S., Tomás, J., Rabiais, I., & Sousa, L. (2025) · Encyclopedia · doi:10.3390/encyclopedia5030093 · Cited by 4
Artificial Intelligence and Publishing Ethics: A Narrative Review and SWOT Analysis
Gurnal, P., & Rana, L. (2025) · Cureus · doi:10.7759/cureus.84098 · Cited by 4
“All stakeholders in research, i.e., research scholars, editors, journals, and regulating national and international organizations, need to come up with initiatives for standard operating procedures (SOPs) and the code of ethics for the responsible use of these chatbots [20].”
Gregory, S., Caffrey, L., Daly, D., & Sheaf, G. (2025) · Scandinavian Journal of Caring Sciences · doi:10.1111/scs.70086 · Cited by 3
Al-Allaf, O., Mostafa, O. E. S., Henegan, N., Austin-Davies, H., & Gardner, A. C. (2025) · BMJ Open · doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2024-095947 · Cited by 3
“A dual reviewer system will be implemented 29 which following Cochrane guidance instructs the two reviewers to initially collaborate with a standardised form that lists titles and abstracts from the same 100 articles, to calibrate and test that both reviewers are implementing the inclusion and…”
Fontanive, V. N., Müller, L. P., Riva, F., Seoane, M., & Celeste, R. K. (2025) · BMC Medical Research Methodology · doi:10.1186/s12874-025-02666-3 · Cited by 3
“Currently, two types of review studies include systematic reviews in their search strategy - umbrella and rapid reviews - making a good filter of utmost importance [12, 13].”
Rees-Davies, L. N., Bennett, A., Mellick, M., Bashir, F., Mackelworth, K., & Glennan, C. (2025) · International Journal of Mentoring and Coaching in Education · doi:10.1108/ijmce-01-2025-0006 · Cited by 3
The Effects of Trifluoroacetic Acid (TFA) in Humans: A Rapid Review
Wipplinger, J., Meusburger, L., Dottolo, E., Galazka, S., Brunner, L., Füreder, A., Kundratitz, V., Rainer, K., Rauscher‐Gabernig, E., Sarka, M., et al. (2025) · Life · doi:10.3390/life15121825 · Cited by 4
“This rapid review was conducted in accordance with the Cochrane rapid review meth-ods guidance [6,7] and in line with the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) [8].”
Csontos, J. K., Brown, N., Edwards, A., Edwards, D. J., Gillen, E., Hounsome, J. C., Kiseleva, M., Lewis, R. A., Macey, S. M., Mann, M. K., et al. (2026) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-026-27122-9 · Cited by 4
“This rapid overview of reviews was based on Cochrane rapid review guidance and the synthesis of systematic review evidence was informed by JBI umbrella review methodology [33, 38].”
Environmental surveillance of pathogens in Africa
Darko, E., Akortia, D., Nkrumah, G., Agyapong, F. O., Twumasi-Ankrah, S., Owusu-Ansah, M., Glazik, R., Shaw, A., Grassly, N. C., Owusu-Dabo, E., et al. (2026) · Applied and Environmental Microbiology · doi:10.1128/aem.01932-25 · Cited by 3
“The review was conducted in accordance with rapid review guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group (29), with methodological adaptations made to expedite the process while maintaining scientific rigor.”
Duchenne Muscular Dystrophy and Delandistrogene Moxeparvovec Gene Therapy in Children
Antonello, B. B., FONTOURA, F. C., Albuquerque, A. L. B., Giovacchini, G., Dill, L. G., Valadão, M. C. D. S., Sadok, S. H., & Ribeiro, P. V. Z. (2026) · Neurology Genetics · doi:10.1212/nxg.0000000000200408 · Cited by 3
“9,10 We registered the study on PROSPERO under protocol number CRD42025635605.”
What happened next? A survey of review clients evaluating impacts of rapid reviews
Bragge, P., Clark, E., Delafosse, V., Cong‐Lem, N., Tsering, D., Kellner, P., Kostopoulos, A., & Dobbins, M. (2025) · Journal of Clinical Epidemiology · doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2025.111673 · Cited by 3
Alexander, C. M., Earle, H., Martyr, A., & Clare, L. (2025) · International Journal of Geriatric Psychiatry · doi:10.1002/gps.70153 · Cited by 2
“In keeping with guidance for conducting rapid reviews [31], a restricted approach was used in a number of areas to accelerate the review as the available timeframe was limited.”
Cultural competence teaching in public health: a rapid review to support implementation
Parić, M., Feria, P. R., Calle, M. D. C., Lagos, G., Commers, M., & Czabanowska, K. (2025) · Health Policy · doi:10.1016/j.healthpol.2025.105512 · Cited by 3
Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing
Maqbali, M. A. H. A. (2024) · Springer eBooks · doi:10.1007/978-3-031-78298-5_6 · Cited by 3
Do virtual reality interventions cause seizures in the critically ill? A rapid review
Goldsworthy, A., Shiratuddin, M. F., Tronstad, O., Fraser, J. F., Olsen, M., Tajouri, L., & Wong, K. W. (2025) · Australian Critical Care · doi:10.1016/j.aucc.2025.101231 · Cited by 3
Alternate Level of Care in Canada: Evidence Assessment Report
CDA-AMC (2025) · Canadian Journal of Health Technologies · doi:10.51731/cjht.2025.1155 · Cited by 2
Hong, Q. N., & Brunton, G. (2025) · Education for Information · doi:10.1177/01678329251323445 · Cited by 2
“This paper used existing literature, especially from rapid reviews (Garritty et al., 2021, 2024; Klerings et al., 2023; Nussbaumer-Streit et al., 2023; Tricco et al., 2017), to plot the review strategies on a continuum of levels of systematicity and provided an explanation based on their potential…”
Ribeiro, P. V. Z., Mitre, L. P., Gauza, M. D. M., Furukawa, P. H., Ferraz, V. E. D. F., & Gomy, I. (2025) · Ophthalmic Genetics · doi:10.1080/13816810.2025.2521647 · Cited by 2
“This systematic review and meta-analysis followed the recommendations of the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions and the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) statement guidelines) (14, 15).”
Charlier, F., & Morgan, P. E. (2025) · Topics in Stroke Rehabilitation · doi:10.1080/10749357.2025.2532413 · Cited by 2
“17 There is currently considerable uncertainty around how to interpret the published evidence to enable safe early mobilization in people following severe stroke.”
Johnson, E. E., Gill, S., Still, M., Trenchard, D., Smith, D. M., Harmston, R. R., McDermott, J., & Pearson, F. (2025) · Health Expectations · doi:10.1111/hex.70425 · Cited by 4
Antonello, B. B., Giovacchini, G., Albuquerque, A. L. B., Rodrigues, C. G., Dill, L. G., Dacoregio, M. I., & Ribeiro, P. V. Z. (2025) · American Journal of Medical Genetics Part A · doi:10.1002/ajmg.a.64258 · Cited by 2
Volume‒outcome relationships in bariatric surgery: a rapid review
Campione, A., Nimptsch, U., Eckhardt, H., & Henschke, C. (2025) · International Journal of Obesity · doi:10.1038/s41366-025-01931-1 · Cited by 2
“We applied Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analysis (PRISMA) 2020 [30], slightly adapted for rapid reviews based on the updated guidance on methods used in Cochrane rapid reviews methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness [31].”
Messina, R., Fantini, M. P., Lodi, M., Bartolo, P. D., Chattat, R., & Lenzi, J. (2025) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare13222840 · Cited by 3
“Rapid reviews have emerged as fit-for-purpose evidence products that retain core principles of systematic reviews while streamlining steps to deliver actionable syntheses in weeks rather than months [11–13].”
The Missing Target: Why Industrialized Animal Farming Must Be at the Core of the Climate Agenda
Mace, J. L., Knight, A., Vieira, F., Tatemoto, P., & Gameiro, M. B. P. (2025) · Animals · doi:10.3390/ani15223256 · Cited by 2
Movsisyan, A., Ioab, K. A., Himmels, J., Bantle, G., Dobrescu, A. I., Flottorp, S. A., Forland, F., Gadinger, A., Kien, C., Klerings, I., et al. (2025) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1017/rsm.2025.10051 · Cited by 3
Grief experiences of fathers who have lost a child: A systematic review
Akkaya, G., Nevruz, H., Usta, E., & İnözü, M. (2025) · Death Studies · doi:10.1080/07481187.2025.2591324 · Cited by 2
Akinboye, M. A., & Ajibade, B. O. (2025) · Advances in Mental Health · doi:10.1080/18387357.2025.2605992 · Cited by 2
Ablakimova, N., Rachina, S. A., Strelkova, D. A., Suvorov, A., & Smagulova, G. (2026) · Journal of Hospital Infection · doi:10.1016/j.jhin.2025.12.009 · Cited by 2
Nichol, B., Ray, D., Tanner, L., Oliver, E. J., Vlaev, I., Sniehotta, F., & McGowan, L. J. (2026) · Globalization and Health · doi:10.1186/s12992-026-01207-x · Cited by 2
Patient and staff safety implications of emergency department boarding: a systematic review
Dowling, M., Farmer, S., Dixit, S., Taylor, N., Chollet-Hinton, L., Tang, A., Powell, E., & Michael, S. S. (2026) · Health Affairs Scholar · doi:10.1093/haschl/qxag084 · Cited by 4
Rodrigues, C. G., de Oliveira, C. T., de Lima, I. F., Antonello, B. B., Giovacchini, G., & Ribeiro, P. V. Z. (2026) · Bone · doi:10.1016/j.bone.2026.117888 · Cited by 2
Mary, M., Clifford, S., & Creanga, A. A. (2026) · Healthcare · doi:10.3390/healthcare14081102 · Cited by 3
“A rapid review was conducted of peer-reviewed literature that assessed implementation of HBPM interventions for pregnant and postpartum patients [17].”
Mitterbauer, N., Hebesberger, D., Daxenbichler, J., Seidl, K. L., Klerings, I., Kien, C., & Griebler, U. (2026) · BMC Public Health · doi:10.1186/s12889-026-27454-6 · Cited by 2
“We limited our inclusion criteria to publications in English and German, the languages spoken fluently by the review team, in line with recommendations from rapid review guidance [62].”
Self-citationAtaguba, J. E.-O., Muriithi, G. N., Achala, D. M., Adote, E. N. A., Nwosu, C. O., Beshah, S. A., Zegeye, E. A., Bocoum, F. I. K. Y., Sumboh, J., Setshegetso, N., et al. (2026) · Frontiers in Health Services · doi:10.3389/frhs.2026.1678143 · Cited by 2
Brooker, P. G., Poelman, A. A. M., Livingstone, K. M., Collins, C. E., Mihrshahi, S., Sambell, R., Wu, J. H. Y., & Hendrie, G. A. (2024) · Journal of Human Nutrition and Dietetics · doi:10.1111/jhn.13398 · Cited by 2
A Rapid Review on Shared Decision Making in Pediatric Palliative Care and End-of-Life Care
Fisher, B., Cormack, C. L., Haskamp, A. C., Hagen, K. A., & Logan, A. (2024) · Journal of Hospice and Palliative Nursing · doi:10.1097/njh.0000000000001089 · Cited by 2
Respiratory Rehabilitation Programs in Portugal: Rapid Review
Ferreira, A., Vigia, C., Ferreira, R., Severino, S., Guerra, N. E. H., JOSÉ, H. M. G., & Sousa, L. (2025) · Rehabilitation and Sports Medicine · doi:10.56294/ri2025117 · Cited by 2
Gonzalez-Moral, S. G., Pennock, E., Ewedairo, O., Green, E., Elgey, J., & Mkwashi, A. (2025) · Interactive Journal of Medical Research · doi:10.2196/70323 · Cited by 3
“…the subject area and to map the recent patent analysis methods research landscape, while also accelerating some of the traditionally more time-consuming aspects of a systematic review by embracing the recommendations for rapid reviews set out by the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods working group [8].”
James‐Martin, G., Davies, C., Riley, M. D., & Poelman, A. A. M. (2025) · Health Promotion Journal of Australia · doi:10.1002/hpja.70061 · Cited by 1
“Review methods were guided by the Cochrane Rapid Review method recommendations [21].”
Nußbaumer-Streit, B., Ledinger, D., Kien, C., Klerings, I., Persad, E., Chapman, A. L., Nowak, C. P., Gadinger, A., Affengruber, L., Smith, M., et al. (2025) · Research Synthesis Methods · doi:10.1017/rsm.2025.10018 · Cited by 2
Self-citation
Metadata
- 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)
- 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
- hybrid
- doi.org
- 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.
A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-07, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).
A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-07 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).
Cited sources are checked with a language model’s help (gpt-6-sol).
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
