Rapid reviews have emerged as a practical and timely approach in healthcare research, where time is critical and decisions have life-altering consequences. Compared to traditional systematic reviews, these are streamlined, more adaptable, and especially useful in crises like pandemics or urgent policy changes.
But here’s the twist: while quicker, they can sometimes compromise rigor. So, are they worth it? Let’s unpack the real story behind rapid reviews—what they offer, what they miss, and how to use them wisely.
In previous posts in the Understanding Literature Reviews in Healthcare series, we’ve examined Narrative Reviews, Systematic Reviews, Meta-analyses, and Scoping Reviews.
Rapid Reviews
Rapid reviews are a form of literature synthesis that prioritize speed over exhaustive coverage. Think of them as the “express lane” in evidence-based practice. When urgent decisions must be made, these reviews synthesize available research within a shorter time frame, sometimes weeks.
By simplifying search strategies, limiting databases, or using single reviewers, the time to completion shrinks dramatically. And yet, despite these shortcuts, they remain grounded in systematic methods. This balance between speed and reliability makes rapid reviews invaluable in health emergencies, policymaking, or resource-limited settings.(1)
Pros and Cons
Pros of Rapid Reviews
- Timeliness: Aim to provide faster results than traditional systematic reviews, ensuring you have what you need for urgent decision-making
- Cost-Effective: Usually require fewer resources and less time, making them a more economical option
- Flexibility: Can be tailored to fit your specific needs by adjusting the scope and methods
- Relevance: Focus on the evidence that matters most, giving you insights that are directly applicable to today’s issues(1,2)
Cons of Rapid Reviews
- Limited Scope: Some relevant studies might be unintentionally left out due to time limits, which means we could miss out on some valuable data
- Reduced Rigor: When we simplify our methods, it might affect the thoroughness and reliability of what we find
- Potential Bias: Quicker processes can sometimes introduce bias, as they leave less time for a complete analysis
- Generalizability: Findings might not cover everything, which could impact how well they apply to broader situations(3,4)
Methodology/Guidelines
One advantage of rapid reviews is their flexible approach to methodology. According to Sutton et al., “In essence, the rapid review family offers a flexible template, within which different types of evidence and approaches to identifying them may be accommodated.”(5)
While this flexibility may mean there’s a bit less guidance for researchers working on a rapid review, an official methodology is in the works. In the meantime, the resources below provide some helpful direction.
Methodology
- Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Guidance: The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group developed these recommendations and best practices for rapid reviews based on a literature review and expert consultations
- Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide: Developed for the World Health Organization (WHO), this guide offers various approaches to designing a rapid review
Protocols
As previously mentioned in this series, a registered protocol, which outlines the review process in advance, is typically necessary for evidence synthesis reviews. Tricco, Langlois, and Straus suggest using PRISMA reporting items to guide rapid review protocol development and simplify the review process, facilitating tracking of the methods employed.(6)
- A Practical Guide: Protocol Development for Systematic Reviews: Guides your team through every stage of writing and registering your protocol
- Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P): Highlights 17 key items that are important for creating protocols for systematic reviews and meta-analyses
- PRISMA-P 2015: Elaboration and Explanation: Presents a thorough overview of each item on the PRISMA-P checklist
Reporting Guidelines
With so many methods for rapid reviews available, it’s essential to report how they’re done clearly. While PRISMA-RR: An Extension to PRISMA for Rapid Reviews is still being developed, the sources below can offer helpful guidance for the time being.
- Rapid Review Method Series: Interim Guidance for the Reporting of Rapid Reviews: Provides suggestions on how to use following PRISMA checklist to report rapid review methods while we wait for PRISMA-RR to be available
- PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses) checklist
Appraisal
Speed comes at a cost. Sometimes, essential studies are overlooked. Critical appraisal is crucial before using rapid reviews for clinical or policy decisions. The appraisal helps identify flaws, biases, or gaps in the review so users can make informed judgments.
- Module 6: Critical Appraisal of Rapid Reviews: This module from the Cochrane Evidence Essentials course outlines how to utilize the CASP Systematic Review Checklist (below) to assess a rapid review (free Cochrane account required)
- CASP Systematic Review Checklist: This checklist, part of the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP), assists in evaluating various types of literature reviews, including rapid reviews
Examples
- Implications of the COVID-19 pandemic for patient safety: a rapid review. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2022.
- Laymouna M, Ma Y, Lessard D, Schuster T, Engler K, Lebouché B. Roles, Users, Benefits, and Limitations of Chatbots in Health Care: Rapid Review. J Med Internet Res. 2024 Jul 23;26:e56930. doi: 10.2196/56930. PMID: 39042446; PMCID: PMC11303905.
Learn More
This article offers just a glimpse of rapid reviews. When you’re prepared to explore further, check out the resources below.
- Cochrane Rapid Reviews: Learning Live webinar series: Cochrane shared these webinar recordings “to provide you with a clear roadmap, helping you navigate the intricacies of rapid review methodologies”
- Paper 2: Performing Rapid Reviews: King et al. highlight essential methodological considerations and practical strategies to enhance the review process while ensuring rigor and transparency
- Training Package for Rapid Reviews: The WHO offers this collection of learning materials, carefully selected to support your team’s learning journey
Final Thoughts on Rapid Reviews
Rapid reviews offer a powerful tool for fast-paced decision-making in healthcare. Though they come with trade-offs, their real-world utility in times of crisis makes them essential in the evidence-based toolkit. With the right protocols and critical appraisal, they can strike the ideal balance between speed and scientific integrity.
At the Healthcare Evidence Search Lab, we continue to break down complex topics to support informed decisions in healthcare. Bookmark us and subscribe for more guides like this one!
Next, we’ve created a comprehensive guide to literature reviews. This resource will help you explore the various types of literature reviews in healthcare and empower you to choose the best review for your research question.
References
- Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015 Sep 16;13(1):224.
- Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1(1):10.
- Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010 Jul 19;5(1):56.
- Marshall IJ, Marshall R, Wallace BC, Brassey J, Thomas J. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019 May 1;109:30–41.
- Sutton A, Clowes M, Preston L, Booth A. Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Inf Libr J. 2019 Sep 1;36(3):202–22.
- Tricco AC, Langlois EtienneV, Straus SE, Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research, World Health Organization. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide [Internet]. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017. Available from: https://iris.who.int/handle/10665/258698
2 comments
Hello! Thank you for this post. I was wondering about potential ethical issues in advising researchers who come to us (librarians) for with an evidence synthesis project, but say they want to do a rapid review because a full systematic review sounds like too much work. I’m new to evidence synthesis work, but this has already happened once to me. The team wanted to be able to publish it faster and didn’t want to go through the quality appraisal step. It wasn’t a topic that needed a fast answer (like COVID), so I advised them that it wasn’t really appropriate to do a rapid review in that case. I think that was the right call, but I’d like to hear what others do in similar situations.
I completely understand where you’re coming from! If they weren’t up for the appraisal, a narrative or scoping review could be an alternative. Ultimately, I believe that the research question and needs should guide the choice of methodology. It’s important to remember that reputable journals typically look for reviews that contribute something fresh to the field.