Volume 24, Issue 2 (5-2025)
JRUMS 2025, 24(2): 196-209 |
Back to browse issues page
Ethics code: این مقاله مروری بوده و کد اخلاق ندارد
Download citation:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
BibTeX | RIS | EndNote | Medlars | ProCite | Reference Manager | RefWorks
Send citation to:
Zamanpour Z, Akbari Zardkhaneh S. An Introduction and Guide to Conducting a Rapid Review as a Fast, Accurate, and Efficient Method in the World of Research: Continuing Education. JRUMS 2025; 24 (2) :196-209
URL: http://journal.rums.ac.ir/article-1-7607-en.html
URL: http://journal.rums.ac.ir/article-1-7607-en.html
Education and Psychology Faculty, Shahid Beheshti University, Tehran, Iran
Abstract: (93 Views)
Rapid reviews have emerged as a valuable tool in the field of research and evidence synthesis. As a species of systematic review, this review follows its guidelines. Systematic reviews and rapid reviews are both important methods for interpreting research designed to answer scientific questions, but with their differences. A systematic review is a comprehensive and rigorous scientific method that requires significant resources and time to collect, evaluate, and analyze existing evidence. A rapid review is a knowledge synthesis method and follows the guidelines of a systematic review, but speeds up knowledge generation by simplifying or eliminating some of its steps. This review is designed as an efficient and rapid method for designing situations where urgent decisions are needed. The steps of a rapid review include formulating and refining questions by surveying knowledge users, determining eligibility criteria, searching limited and transparent sources, evaluating data and results, and presenting a summary and categorized presentation. In general, while systematic reviews are suitable for more robust and comprehensive decision-making, rapid reviews are particularly useful in emergency situations due to their speed and efficiency. This article first defines and explains the reasons for the emergence of rapid reviews and compares them with systematic reviews. Then the steps involved in conducting rapid reviews, and finally, the applications advantages, methodology, and challenges of conducting them are discussed.
Keywords: Rapid review, Systematic review, Rapid review method
Funding: There is no financial support.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Ethical approval: Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions:
- Conceptualization: Zeinab Zamanpour, Saeed Akbari Zardkhaneh
- Methodology: Zeinab Zamanpour
- Data collection: Zeinab Zamanpour
- Formal analysis: Zeinab Zamanpour
- Supervision: Saeed Akbari Zardkhaneh
- Project administration: Saeed Akbari Zardkhaneh
- Writing - original draft: Zeinab Zamanpour
- Writing - review & editing: Zeinab Zamanpour, Saeed Akbari Zardkhaneh
Keywords: Rapid review, Systematic review, Rapid review method
Funding: There is no financial support.
Conflict of interest: None declared.
Ethical approval: Not applicable.
Authors’ contributions:
- Conceptualization: Zeinab Zamanpour, Saeed Akbari Zardkhaneh
- Methodology: Zeinab Zamanpour
- Data collection: Zeinab Zamanpour
- Formal analysis: Zeinab Zamanpour
- Supervision: Saeed Akbari Zardkhaneh
- Project administration: Saeed Akbari Zardkhaneh
- Writing - original draft: Zeinab Zamanpour
|
Citation: Zamanpour Z, Akbari Zardkhaneh S. An Introduction and Guide to Conducting a Rapid Review as a Fast, Accurate, and Efficient Method in the World of Research: Continuing Education. J Rafsanjan Univ Med Sci 2025; 24 (2): 196-209. [Farsi]
|
Type of Study: Review Article |
Subject:
آموزش پزشكي
Received: 2024/12/28 | Accepted: 2025/03/5 | Published: 2025/05/20
Received: 2024/12/28 | Accepted: 2025/03/5 | Published: 2025/05/20
References
1. Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Systematic Reviews 2015; 4: 1-2.
2. Munn Z, Lockwood C, Moola S. The development and use of evidence summaries for point of care information systems: a streamlined rapid review approach. Worldviews on Evidence‐Based Nursing 2015; 12(3): 131-8.
3. Higgins J, Thomas J, Chandler J, et al. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.3; 2022 (updated February 2022). www.training.cochrane.org/ handbook
4. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Systematic Reviews 2012; 1(1): 1-9.
5. Taylor‐Phillips S, Geppert J, Stinton C, Freeman K, Johnson S, Fraser H, et al. Comparison of a full systematic review versus rapid review approaches to assess a newborn screening test for tyrosinemia type 1. Research Synthesis Methods 2017; 8(4): 475-84.
6. Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal 2009; 26(2): 91-108.
7. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine 2015; 13: 1-15.
8. Choudhury A, Kuehn A, Shamszare H, Shahsavar, Y. Analysis of mobile app-based mental health solutions for college students: a rapid review. In Healthcare 2023; 11(2): p: 272.
9. Spiteri J, Deguara J, Muscat T, Bonello C, Farrugia R, Milton J, et al. The impact of COVID-19 on children’s learning: a rapid review. Educational and Developmental Psychologist 2023; 40(1): 5-17.
10. Hamel C, Michaud A, Thuku M, Skidmore B, Stevens A, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Garritty C. Defining rapid reviews: a systematic scoping review and thematic analysis of definitions and defining characteristics of rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2021; 129: 74-85.
11. Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Devane D, et al. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness 2024; BMJ 384.
12. Reynen E, Robson R, Ivory J, Hwee J, Straus S.E, Tricco A.C. A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol 2018; 96, 23-34.
13. Ganann R, Ciliska D, Thomas H. Expediting systematic reviews: methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implementation Science 2010; 5: 1-10.
14. Cameron A: Rapid versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in Health Technology Assessment. Australia: ASERNIPS; 2007:1-119. 1-119.
15. Oliveira C, Pereira A, Vagos P, Nóbrega C, Gonçalves J, Afonso B. Effectiveness of mobile app-based psychological interventions for college students: a systematic review of the literature. Frontiers in Psychology 2021; 12: 647606.
16. Watt A, Cameron A, Sturm L, Lathlean T, Babidge W, Blamey S, et al. Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care 2008; 24(2): 133-139.
17. Oxman AD, Schünemann HJ, Fretheim A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Research Policy and Systems 2006; 4: 1-10.
18. Dobbins M. Rapid review guidebook. Natl Collab Cent Method Tools 2017; 13: 25.
19. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King V.J, Hamel C, Kamel C, et al. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J ClinEpidemiol 2021; 130: 13-22.
20. Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, Boutron I, Hoffmann TC, Mulrow CD, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ 2021; 372.
21. Tricco A.C, Langlois E, Straus S.E, World Health Organization. Rapid reviews to strengthen health policy and systems: a practical guide 2017; World Health Organization.
22. Stevens A, Garritty C, Hersi M, Moher D. (2018). Developing PRISMA-RR, a reporting guideline for rapid reviews of primary studies (Protocol). Equator Network 2018.
23. Tricco AC, Zarin W, Antony J, Hutton B, Moher D, Sherifali D, Straus S.E. An international survey and modified Delphi approach revealed numerous rapid review methods. J Clin Epidemiol 2016; 70: 61-67.
24. Dong Y, Shamsuddin A, Campbell H, Theodoratou E. Current COVID-19 treatments: Rapid review of the literature. Journal of Global Health 2021; 11.
25. Lo CK. What is the impact of ChatGPT on education? A rapid review of the literature. Education Sciences 2023; 13(4): 410.
26. Haby MM, Chapman E, Clark R, Barreto J, Reveiz L, Lavis JN. What are the best methodologies for rapid reviews of the research evidence for evidence-informed decision making in health policy and practice: a rapid review. Health Research Policy and Systems 2016; 14: 1-12.
27. Tricco AC, Garritty CM, Boulos L, Lockwood C, Wilson M, McGowan J, et al. Rapid review methods more challenging during COVID-19: commentary with a focus on 8 knowledge synthesis steps. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology 2020; 126: 177-83.
28. Jüni P, Holenstein F, Sterne J, Bartlett C, Egger M. Direction and impact of language bias in meta-analyses of controlled trials: empirical study. International Journal of Epidemiology 2002; 31(1): 115-23.
29. Moher D, Pham B, Lawson ML, Klassen TP. The inclusion of reports of randomised trials published in languages other than English in systematic reviews. Health Technology Assessment 2003; 7(41): 1-90.
30. Moher D, Klassen TP, Schulz KF, Berlin JA, Jadad AR, Liberati A. What contributions do languages other than English make on the results of meta-analyses? J Clin Epidemiol 2000; 53(9): 964-72.
31.
Send email to the article author
| Rights and permissions | |
 |
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License. |
