Rapid reviews: the pros and cons of an accelerated review process

Although systematic reviews are the method of choice to synthesize scientific evidence, they can take years to complete and publish. Clinicians, managers, and policy-makers often need input from scientific evidence in a more timely and resource-efficient manner. For this purpose, rapid reviews are conducted. Rapid reviews are performed using an accelerated process. However, they should not be less systematic than standard systematic reviews, and the introduction of bias must be avoided. In this article, we describe what rapid reviews are, present their characteristics, give some examples, highlight potential pitfalls, and draw attention to the importance of evidence summaries in order to facilitate adoption in clinical decision-making.

Automated summary

Rapid reviews are conducted as a more timely and resource-efficient alternative to standard systematic reviews, but should still maintain systematic rigor and avoid bias. Evidence summaries play a crucial role in facilitating their adoption in clinical decision-making.