Search

Background and Objective Rapid reviews were first mentioned in the literature in 1997, when Best et al. described the rapid health technology assessment program in the south and west regions of England but did not provide a formal definition. More recently, the only consensus around a rapid review definition is that a formal definition does not exist. The primary aim of this work is to create a repository of existing definitions and to identify key themes, which may help the knowledge synthesis community in defining rapid review products. Methods A systematic scoping review was performed to identify definitions used in journal-published rapid reviews written in English between 2017 and January 2019. We searched Medline, Embase Classic + Embase, PsycINFO, ERIC, Cochrane Library, CINAHL, and Web of Science on December 21, 2018. Two reviewers performed study selection and data extraction using a priori–defined methods published in a protocol. Definitions from rapid review methods articles (published from 1997 onward) identified in another scoping review were added to the results, and all definitions were thematically analyzed using NVivo. A quantitative analysis was also performed around studies cited. Results Definitions from 216 rapid reviews and 90 rapid review methods articles were included in the thematic analysis. Eight key themes were identified: accelerated/rapid process or approach, variation in methods shortcuts, focus/depth/breadth of scope, compare and contrast to a full traditional systematic review, stakeholder rationale, resource efficiency rationale, systematic approach, bias/limitations. Secondary referencing was a common occurrence. Conclusion Thematic analysis performed in this systematic scoping review has allowed for the creation of a suggested definition for rapid reviews that can be used to inform the systematic review community.

Objectives 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. Study Design and Setting 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. Results 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. Conclusion 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.

BackgroundExisting systematic reviews of Rh immunoprophylaxis include only data from randomized controlled trials, have dated searches, and some do not report on all domains of risk of bias or evaluate the certainty of the evidence. Our objective was to perform an updated review, by including new trials, any comparative observational studies, and assessing the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE framework.MethodsWe searched MEDLINE, Embase and the Cochrane Library from 2000 to November 26, 2019. Relevant websites and bibliographies of systematic reviews and guidelines were searched for studies published before 2000. Outcomes of interest were sensitization and adverse events. Risk of bias was evaluated with the Cochrane tool and ROBINS-I. The certainty of the evidence was performed using the GRADE framework.ResultsThirteen randomized trials and eight comparative cohort studies were identified, evaluating 12 comparisons. Although there is some evidence of beneficial treatment effects (e.g., at 6-months postpartum, fewer women who received RhIg at delivery compared to no RhIg became sensitized [70 fewer sensitized women per 1,000 (95%CI: 67 to 71 fewer); I2 = 73%]), due to very low certainty of the evidence, the magnitude of the treatment effect may be overestimated. The certainty of the evidence was very low for most outcomes often due to high risk of bias (e.g., randomization method, allocation concealment, selective reporting) and imprecision (i.e., few events and small sample sizes). There is limited evidence on prophylaxis for invasive fetal procedures (e.g. amniocentesis) in the comparative literature, and few studies reported adverse events.ConclusionSerious risk of bias and low to very low certainty of the evidence is found in existing RCTs and comparative observational studies addressing optimal effectiveness of Rh immunoprophylaxis. Guideline development committees should exercise caution when assessing the strength of the recommendations that inform and influence clinical practice in this area.