ArticleBMJ evidence-based medicine2025
Rapid reviews methods series: assessing the appropriateness of conducting a rapid review.
Article in BMJ evidence-based medicine, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it.
- Developing forensic patient-oriented research guidelines: a rapid review using an integrated knowledge translation approach.Frontiers in psychiatry · 2026Pooled it
- Rapid Reviews: A Tutorial.Cochrane evidence synthesis and methods · 2026Article
- The Use and Utility of Wearable Devices for Tracking Sleep and Activity in Inpatient Mental Health Settings: Protocol for a Rapid Review.JMIR research protocols · 2026Article
- Characteristics of published mini and rapid health technology assessments reports: a cross-sectional analysis.International journal of technology assessment in health care · 2026Article
- Personalized prevention of neurodegenerative diseases: scoping review and evidence gap map.Alzheimer's & dementia : the journal of the Alzheimer's Association · 2025Article
- Short Report: Comparison of three methods for identifying implementation determinants to measurement-based care.Research square · 2025Article
- Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on rapid scoping, mapping and evidence and gap map ('Big Picture Reviews').BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Rapid review method series: interim guidance for the reporting of rapid reviews.BMJ evidence-based medicine · 2025Article
- Conceptualizing Sleep Satisfaction: A Rapid Review.Behavioral sciences (Basel, Switzerland) · 2024Review
- Reply.Occupational medicine (Oxford, England) · 2024Article
- Understanding the Perspectives of School Children Who Stutter: A Rapid Review.International journal of language & communication disordersReview
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
This paper, part of the Cochrane Rapid Review Methods Group series, offers guidance on determining when to conduct a rapid review (RR) instead of a full systematic review (SR). While both review types aim to comprehensively synthesise evidence, RRs, conducted within a shorter time frame of typically 6 months or less, involve streamlined methods to expedite the process. The decision to opt for an RR depends on the urgency of the research question, resource availability and the impact on decision outcomes. The paper categorises scenarios where RRs are appropriate, including urgent decision-making, informing guidelines, assessing new technologies and identifying evidence gaps. It also outlines instances when RRs may be inappropriate, cautioning against conducting them solely for ease, quick publication or only cost-saving motives.When deciding on an RR, it is crucial to consider both conceptual and practical factors. These factors encompass the urgency of needing timely evidence, the consequences of waiting for a full SR, the potential risks associated with incomplete evidence, and the risk of not using synthesised evidence in decision-making, among other considerations. Key factors to weigh also include having a clearly defined need, a manageable scope and access to the necessary expertise. Overall, this paper aims to guide informed judgements about whether to choose an RR over an SR based on the specific research question and context. Researchers and decision-makers are encouraged to carefully weigh potential trade-offs when opting for RRs.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.