Skip to main content

Table 1 Areas where “shortcuts” could be considered to reduce time to completion of rapid reviews

From: Designing a rapid response program to support evidence-informed decision-making in the Americas region: using the best available evidence and case studies

Systematic review step

Possible “shortcuts”

Potential impact on the validity of the results

Relevant AMSTAR question and potential impact of shortcut on AMSTAR score

Preparation of a protocol

• Omit protocol

Unknown

Q1. Loss of one point if a protocol is not prepared and/or not mentioned in report

Question formulation

• Limit the number of questions and sub-questions

• Limit the scope of the question/s

None expected

 

Selecting relevant studies

• One reviewer screens titles and abstracts

• One reviewer screens full text

Unknown, though one reviewer could miss up to 9 % of eligible randomized controlled trials [42]

Q2. Loss of one point if only one reviewer does screening and/or only one reviewer does data extraction

Data extraction

• One reviewer extracts data

Can increase the number of errors but the impact on results is not known [4345]

 
 

• One reviewer extracts data with checking by a second reviewer

Unknown

 

• Data extraction limited to key characteristics, results, conflicts of interest

Unknown

 

Literature search

• Limit number of databases searched

• Limit or omit hand searching of references lists and relevant journals

• Eliminate consultation with experts to find additional studies

Limiting the number of databases searched can increase efficiency without compromising validity [4651], especially if combined with some hand searching and contact with experts [5257]

Q3. Loss of one point if less than two databases searched and/or no supplementary strategies

Inclusion criteria

   

 Gray literature

• Limit or omit gray literature

Could introduce publication bias but the evidence is mixed [16, 5860]

Q4. Loss of one point if gray literature omitted

 Language

• English only

Effect can vary depending on the question [50, 6168]

 

 Dates

• Narrow time frame, e.g., last 5 or 10 years

None expected

 

 Study types

• Restrict study types to systematic reviews (and economic evaluations)

• Restrict study types to randomized controlled trials or controlled clinical trials (and economic evaluations)

None expected [6972]

 

Quality assessment

• Limit or omit quality assessment

Not recommended. Several authors suggest that, where resources are limited, priority should be given to quality assessment rather than extensive searching [51, 73]

Q7 and Q8. Loss of two points if not assessed, documented and used in formulation of conclusions

 

• Omit “a priori” specification

• Done by one reviewer

Unknown

Data synthesis

• Narrative synthesis only (no meta-analysis)

Unknown – meta-analysis can increase power and precision but also has potential to mislead if not applied appropriately and done correctly [19]

Q9. None if explained that meta-analysis not possible due to heterogeneity. If not, loss of one point

Assessment of publication bias

• Omit

Unknown

Q10. Loss of one point if omitted

Assessment of conflict of interest

• Omitted for individual studies and/or for systematic review

Unknown

Q11. Loss of one point if omitted

Report

• Information included limited

Unknown but can impact on AMSTAR score if insufficient detail of methods provided to enable a quality assessment. Sufficient detail of methods will help the reviewer to assess the validity of the results [17, 18, 23]

Q1–11. Potential large loss of points if key AMSTAR questions not covered

External peer review

• Omit or limit

Unknown