Few evaluative studies exist examining rapid review methodology across stages of conduct: a systematic scoping review

• Published in: Journal of clinical epidemiology Vol. 126; pp. 131 - 140
• Main Authors: Hamel, Candyce, Michaud, Alan, Thuku, Micere, Affengruber, Lisa, Skidmore, Becky, Nussbaumer-Streit, Barbara, Stevens, Adrienne, Garritty, Chantelle
• Format: Journal Article
• Language: English
• Published: United States Elsevier Inc 01.10.2020; Elsevier Limited
• Subjects: Abbreviated methods; Abbreviations as Topic; Australia - epidemiology; Bias; Canada - epidemiology; Databases, Bibliographic - statistics & numerical data; Databases, Factual - statistics & numerical data; Databases, Factual - trends; Documents; Epidemiology; Evaluation; Formal evaluations; Guidelines as Topic; Humans; Internal Medicine; Mapping; MEDLINE - statistics & numerical data; Methodology; Peer review; Publications - trends; Rapid reviews; Research Design - trends; Review Literature as Topic; Scoping review; Shortcuts; United Kingdom - epidemiology; Australia; Canada; United Kingdom; Scoping review; Rapid reviews; Shortcuts; Formal evaluations; Abbreviated methods; Methodology
• DOI: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.06.027
• ISSN: 0895-4356; 1878-5921

The objective is to identify studies that have assessed methodological shortcuts for undertaking rapid reviews (RRs) and mapping these to review conduct stages and Methodological Expectations of Cochrane Intervention Reviews (MECIR) guidance. We conducted a systematic scoping review. We searched multiple databases (e.g., MEDLINE, Embase), which were supplemented by grey literature searching. Methods were defined a priori in a published protocol. Out of 1,873 records, 90 publications were divided into four RR categories: formal evaluation (n = 14), development, which included four subcategories (n = 65), comparison (n = 2), and applying reporting guidelines/critical appraisal tools (n = 3), and a systematic review surrogate category (n = 6). Four formal evaluation studies were composite evaluations, including more than one shortcut simultaneously. The remaining 10 studies evaluated viable (e.g., including English-only publications) and unviable (e.g., single-reviewer screening) shortcuts, covering five key dimensions and five ‘other’ (e.g., involving stakeholders) considerations while conducting a review. Because of complexities around shortcuts evaluated, only a cursory mapping to MECIR criteria was possible. Some methods shortcuts may be valid in the context of RRs, but limitations in the studies may limit their applicability. The results will serve to inform discussions within Cochrane regarding possible future implementation of RRs.