Institute for Healthcare Management and Research, University of Duisburg-Essen, Essen, Germany.
Centre for International Health Protection, ZIG2, Evidence-based Public Health, Robert Koch Institute, Berlin, Germany.
Res Synth Methods. 2022 Jul;13(4):394-404. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1555. Epub 2022 Mar 27.
The aim of the present work was to identify published methodological guidance for rapid reviews (RRs) and to analyze the recommendations with regard to time-saving measures. A literature search was performed in PubMed and EMBASE in November 2020. In addition, a search based on Google Scholar and websites of governmental and non-governmental organizations was conducted. Literature screening was carried out by two researchers independently. A total of 34 publications were included. These describe 38 distinct RR types. The timeframe to complete the identified RR types ranges from 24 h to 6 months (mean time 2.2 months). For most RR types a specific research question (n = 21) and a prioritizing search (n = 25; preference for e.g., systematic reviews and meta-analyses) is employed. Different approaches such as reduced personnel in literature screening (n = 21) and data extraction (n = 21) are recommended. The majority of RR types include a bias assessment (n = 28) and suggest a narrative report focusing on safety and efficacy. The included RR types are heterogeneous in terms of completion time, considered domains and strategies to alter the standard systematic review methods. A rationale for the recommended shortcuts is rarely presented.
本研究旨在确定快速综述 (RR) 的已发表方法学指南,并分析有关节省时间措施的建议。2020 年 11 月在 PubMed 和 EMBASE 进行了文献检索。此外,还基于 Google Scholar 和政府及非政府组织的网站进行了搜索。文献筛选由两名研究人员独立进行。共纳入 34 篇文献。这些文献描述了 38 种不同的 RR 类型。已确定 RR 类型的完成时间范围为 24 小时至 6 个月(平均时间为 2.2 个月)。对于大多数 RR 类型,都采用了特定的研究问题(n=21)和优先搜索(n=25;例如,对系统评价和荟萃分析的偏好)。建议采用不同的方法,如文献筛选(n=21)和数据提取(n=21)中的人员减少。大多数 RR 类型都包括偏倚评估(n=28),并建议进行重点关注安全性和疗效的叙述性报告。纳入的 RR 类型在完成时间、考虑的领域以及改变标准系统评价方法的策略方面存在差异。很少有文献为推荐的快捷方式提供理由。