Skip to main content

Table 1 Characteristics of the included rapid reviews (n = 66)

From: Quality of conduct and reporting in rapid reviews: an exploration of compliance with PRISMA and AMSTAR guidelines

Characteristic Published (n = 33) Unpublished (n = 33) All (n = 66)
Year of production, n (%)    
 2013 8 (24) 11 (33)a 19 (29)
 2014 25 (76) 22 (67)a 47 (71)
Number of authors, n (%)    
 1 0 (0) 3 (9) 3 (5)
 2–4 14 (42) 11 (33) 25 (38)
 5–8 13 (39) 5 (15) 18 (27)
 >8 6 (18) 5 (15) 11 (17)
 Not reported 0 (0) 9 (12) 9 (14)
Self-identifies as a rapid review, n (%)    
 Yes 33 (100) 29 (88) 62 (94)
 No 0 (0) 4 (12) 4 (6)
Country, n (%)    
 Canada 5 (15) 13 (39) 18 (27)
 USA 4 (12) 3 (9) 7 (11)
 UK 11 (33) 9 (27) 20 (31)
 Australia 4 (12) 5 (15) 9 (14)
 Netherlands 6 (18) 0 (0) 6 (9)
 Korea 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (2)
 Switzerland 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2)
 Malaysia 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2)
 Various 2 (6) 1 (3) 3 (5)
Rapid review definition, n (%)    
 Cited 20 (60) 10 (30) 30 (46)
 Own 0 (0) 6 (18) 6 (9)
 Not reported 13 (40) 17 (52) 30 (46)
Nomenclature, n (%)b    
 Rapid review 14 (15) 10 (30) 24 (36)
 Rapid systematic review 9 (12) 1 (3) 10 (15)
 Rapid evidence assessment 6 (18) 4 (12) 10 (15)
 Rapid evidence synthesis 2 (6) 1 (3) 3 (5)
 Rapid synthesis 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2)
 Rapid review of systematic reviews 1 (3) 1 (3) 2 (3)
 Systematic rapid evidence assessment 1 (3) 0 (0) 1 (2)
 Evidence-based analysis 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2)
 Rapid response 0 (0) 2 (6) 2 (3)
 Rapid evidence report/review 0 (0) 6 (18) 6 (9)
 Evidence briefing 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2)
 Evidence map 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2)
 Rapid advice guideline 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2)
 Systematic rapid evidence review 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2)
 None used 0 (0) 1 (3) 1 (2)
Research questionc, n (%)    
 Clinical efficacy 18 (55) 22 (67) 40 (61)
 Clinical effectiveness 16 (48) 25 (76) 41 (62)
 Safety 13 (30) 15 (45) 28 (42)
 Diagnostic/screening test 2 (6) 1 (3) 3 (5)
 Health economics/cost 4 (12) 14 (42) 18 (27)
 Guidelines 1 (3) 7 (21) 8 (12)
 Public health 6 (18) 5 (15) 11 (17)
 Health systems 9 (27) 11 (33) 20 (30)
 Health policy 5 (15) 3 (9) 8 (12)
 Service delivery 9 (27) 12 (36) 21 (32)
 Otherd 5 (15) 5 (15) 10 (15)
Synthesis method, n (%)    
 Narrative 31 (94) 27 (82) 58 (88)
 Meta-analysis 2 (6) 2 (6) 4 (6)
 Indirect comparison 0 (0) 1 (3) 3 (5)
 Economic evaluation 0 (0)e 0 (0) 0 (0)
 None (no studies located) 0 (0) 3 (9) 3 (5)
Length of publication, number of pagesf, n (%)    
 1–5 5 (15) 3 (9) 8 (12)
 6–10 17 (52) 6 (18) 23 (35)
 11–15 9 (27)g 3 (9) 12 (18)
 16–20 2 (6) 5 (15) 7 (11)
 20–50 0 (0) 10 (30) 10 (15)
 >50 0 (0) 6 (18) 6 (9)
Length of publication, mean (SD) 8.8 (4.03) 22.8 (27.2) 18.7 (21.7)
  1. RR rapid review, SD standard deviation
  2. aProportion matched by year and limited in number by those published, proportion does not reflect the actual number of unpublished rapid reviews
  3. bFor unpublished refers to the terminology used to describe the methodology employed, not the product name assigned by the organization. Some publication identified by multiple names, but this data reflects the most commonly used term in the publication
  4. cMultiple research questions per rapid review
  5. dQuality indicators, epidemiological associations, healthcare study methodology, patient experience
  6. eA single study in the published group did a narrative of economic evaluations, other simply analysed costs reported. No study did a de novo economic evaluation
  7. fWithout references or appendices, including figures. One unpublished report was a webpage only and was counted as five pages approximated to its content. Results sum the number and percentage of rapid reviews in each page range
  8. gMean across 10 included multiple publications for the same RR used