Table 1 Core principles for rapid review authors

• Work from a protocol, and use it to guide the conduct and reporting of the review;

• Accurately and transparently document all steps, tailoring of methods, and judgements in the review process (such as: “Did the rapid review team make any methodological concessions to answer the research question[s] within available resources?”);

• Use clear language that will be understandable to knowledge users. Write at a level that someone without a university degree can understand, and avoid the use of jargon or technical terms, except where such terms are essential. Be aware of technical terminology or terms that may have a slightly different definition in the review setting than in everyday usage (e.g. blinding, control, practice);

• Provide enough detail in the account of the review methods so that a knowledgeable reader could reproduce the review;

• Summarize the methodological strengths and weaknesses using language designed to help non-experts interpret and judge the value of the review;

• Consider the needs of the knowledge user. Discuss their policy window, how findings will be reported early in the review process, whether a specific template is desired or required for reporting, or whether they have additional requirements beyond a traditional research findings report (e.g. a slide deck or policy brief). It may be helpful to provide the template to report the rapid review to knowledge users, and to ask if it meets their needs or if additional (or less) detail is needed. A rapid review report should be tailored to the needs of the knowledge users, while balancing timelines and available resources; and,

• Communicate with the knowledge user throughout the review process, or at minimum discuss their expectations for communication in advance.