Department of Medicine, Queen's University, Etherington Hall, Rooms 3032-3043, 94 Stuart Street, Kingston, Ontario K7L 3N6, Canada.
Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute of St Michael's Hospital, 209 Victoria Street, East Building, Room 716, Toronto, Ontario M5B 1 W8, Canada.
J Clin Epidemiol. 2018 Apr;96:23-34. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.001. Epub 2017 Dec 16.
To compare rapid reviews (RRs) to same-topic systematic reviews (SRs) for methods, studies included, and conclusions.
A retrospective comparison of studies comparing RRs and SRs by searching four scoping reviews published between 2007 and 2016. Reports were included if literature searches were conducted within 24 months of each other and had common research questions. Reviews were compared for duration, studies included, population, intervention, comparisons, outcomes, study designs, quality, methods, and conclusions.
Six studies containing 16 review pairs were included, covering nine topics. Overall, RRs used abbreviated methods more often: no search of grey literature, employing one reviewer to screen studies, engaging fewer experts, including fewer studies, and providing shorter reports, with poorer reporting quality and faster completion. Reviews reported similar conclusions, with two exceptions: one SR did not include a key study; separately, two RRs failed to highlight an association with early mortality identified by the SR. RRs tended to provide less detail and fewer considerations.
RRs used several methodological shortcuts compared with SRs on the same topic. It was challenging to discern methodological differences because of retrospective assessment and substantial nonreporting, particularly for RRs.
比较快速综述（RRs）与同主题系统综述（SRs）在方法、纳入研究和结论方面的差异。
通过检索 2007 年至 2016 年间发表的 4 篇范围综述，对比较 RRs 和 SRs 的研究进行回顾性比较。如果文献检索在彼此 24 个月内进行且具有共同的研究问题，则纳入报告。对综述的持续时间、纳入的研究、人群、干预措施、比较、结局、研究设计、质量、方法和结论进行比较。
共纳入 6 项研究，包含 16 对综述，涵盖 9 个主题。总体而言，RRs 更频繁地使用简化方法：不搜索灰色文献，仅由一名评审员筛选研究，不征求更多专家意见，纳入的研究较少，报告较短，报告质量较差，完成速度较快。尽管存在两个例外（一项 SR 未纳入关键研究，两项 RRs 未能突出 SR 确定的与早期死亡率的关联），但综述报告的结论相似。RRs 往往提供的细节和考虑因素较少。
与同主题的 SRs 相比，RRs 在方法上使用了一些简化方法。由于回顾性评估和大量未报告内容，特别是对于 RRs，很难辨别方法学差异。
