Rapid Review

 

Key features of rapid review

A rapid review is similar in method to systematic literature review, but because parts of the process are streamlined or omitted the process is accelerated, allowing you to complete the review in a shorter period of time. Rapid reviews are primarily used for new (social) developments or emerging research topics, updates to previous reviews, or to identify what is known about the effect of a new policy or (medical) intervention. The urgency of the demand for knowledge about a topic is therefore characteristic of a rapid review. Another defining feature is that key stakeholders (e.g., policy makers, medical specialists, reader target group of your review) are actively involved in the review process: they can give input on the research question, the inclusion and exclusion criteria that will be established and can be involved in the screening process. 

 

How can the research process be accelerated?

There are several points in the process where you can make choices that can speed up the process. Note that the basic premise of a rapid review remains that it has a thorough, transparent and reproducible methodology. This library guide follows the recommendations of the Cochrane rapid review method and provides (among others) the following suggestions:

  • A specific research question (PICO is an often used research question framework);
  • Search strategy: you can limit your search strategy to a particular type of study, the language in which it was written, or the year of publication. By providing tighter boundaries to your search you limit the number of results that come up in your search. This means that you have to screen fewer results in the selection and appraisal phases
  • Selection: is based on predetermined inclusion and exclusion criteria
  • Appraisal: Critical and thorough. You can have several people do the appraisal simultaneously. Always report the method and the extent to which the researchers were in agreement during this part. 
  • Data extraction: employ two researchers for data extraction, with the first person doing the data extraction and the second person doing a check on the work done. You can also limit the number of topics to be covered to only the strictly necessary. 
  • Report: a descriptive summary of the results, and/or organized by research topic. 
     

Elsewhere in this guide, you will read for each phase of the literature review what the minimum requirements are for conducting a rapid review correctly, and where there are opportunities to speed up the process further. 

 

What do you need for a rapid review?

 

 

Determine your research question and search strategy, and document them in a protocol

Developing a review protocol is an integral part of a rapid review. In it, you define your research question, the inclusion and exclusion criteria you have chosen and the databases you will search. In the event of social, medical or policy developments, the review protocol may need to be modified. Therefore, make sure that there is room for such changes in your protocol, and properly substantiate and document any changes. Additional recommendations are:

  • Involve key stakeholders in drafting or having the research question reviewed. Involve them in defining the different components (target group, intervention, comparison, outcome) of this research question. The research question often follows the PICO structure, or a variation on PICO;
  • Keep the research question concise: limit the number of target groups, interventions, comparisons and outcomes to be investigated. Focus on factors relevant to decision making;
  • Limit the time frame of studies you want to include in the screening, but provide a medical or methodological rationale for this;
  • Limit to English language publications only; include other language articles when adequate justification can be provided;
  • Consider systematic reviews as a potentially relevant study design that can be included. 
     

Register the protocol

Like a systematic review, it is strongly recommended that you prepare a protocol for your rapid review. You can register your protocol in Cochrane Library, PROSPERO or Open Science Framework (OSF). Your protocol is essentially a living document: you may make changes if necessary, but make sure you document these changes properly.

 

 

Conduct your search

Cochrane rapid review recommends searching at least Cochrane CENTRAL, MEDLINE and Embase. Through the Hanze University you can access MEDLINE, but not Embase. If you (also) have a university account, you may be able to access Embase through that portal. In addition, you may want to search some more specialized databases, such as CINAHL and PsychInfo, but only do so if these are relevant for the research topic. To save time and resources, it is advisable to limit the use of gray literature and additional searches.  

 

De-duplication

See also the "deduplication" section in systematic review.

 

Screening abstracts by title and abstract

To streamline the screening process, it is recommended to use a standardized form to determine whether a title should be included or not. Tip: conduct a pilot screening with 30-50 abstracts for the entire screening team to test the form and to calibrate the screening: does everyone rate the abstracts the same way, are the items interpreted similarly? Have at least 20% of the abstracts screened by two or more reviewers and determine -in advance- how any conflicts will be handled. Have one reviewer screen the remaining abstracts - a second reviewer then examines all excluded abstracts. Address conflicting decisions and document the process carefully. 

 

Critical appraisal of the full-texts

Similar to reviewing the abstracts, it is recommended that a small portion (5-10) of the articles be reviewed first by the entire screening team to test the screening form and to calibrate the reviews. Let one reviewer screen all full text articles; a second reviewer checks all excluded articles. 


Data extraction

Have a single reviewer pilot the data extraction; a second reviewer checks that the data extraction was done correctly and completely. Limit data extraction to a small set of topics. Use data from previous systematic reviews if necessary to save time for this section. 

 

Risk of Bias Assessment

Preferably use a thorough risk of bias tool appropriate to the study designs in question. Have a single reviewer perform the risk of bias, with a second reviewer to further verify the completeness and correctness of the risk of bias. Perform the risk of bias assessment on only the most important components.

 

Read the author's guide of the journal

If you already have a (scientific) journal in mind where you would like to publish, then make sure to read the author's guide before you start writing. This way, you know in advance what the requirements are for a rapid review publication in the relevant journal (e.g. maximum number of words, structure).

 

Report your search strategy

Provide a detailed description of the search strategy so that others will be able to reproduce your literature review. Reporting your search strategy is not only good practice, it enhances the transparency of your review. For your inspiration, we have added some rapid reviews published by Hanze researchers in the list of resources below. All publications are open access available.

 

Summary of results

In a rapid review you summarize the results in a narrative way, for example by theme, intervention, or target group. Conducting and reporting a meta-analysis is not mandatory for a rapid review: do this only if it is relevant and contributes significantly to your publication. 
 

Useful links and resources

 

Rapid reviews that are open access available:

  • Brooks, S. K., Webster, R. K., Smith, L. E., Woodland, L., Wessely, S., Greenberg, N., & Rubin, G. J. (2020). The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. The lancet, 395(10227), 912-920. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1016/S0140-6736(20)30460-8
  • di Martino, E., Smith, L., Bradley, S. H., Hemphill, S., Wright, J., Renzi, C., ... & Neal, R. D. (2022). Incidence trends for twelve cancers in younger adults—A rapid review. British Journal of Cancer, 126(10), 1374-1386. DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s41416-022-01704-x

  • Visram, S., Cheetham, M., Riby, D. M., Crossley, S. J., & Lake, A. A. (2016). Consumption of energy drinks by children and young people: a rapid review examining evidence of physical effects and consumer attitudes. BMJ open, 6(10), e010380. DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2015-010380

 

If you have questions, please contact the Information Specialist Research of your research center, or go to support & contact for more information and advice. 

[anchornavigation]