Skip to main content

Table 2 Suggested minimum reporting items for rapid reviews of health policy and systems research

From: Paper 4: a review of reporting and disseminating approaches for rapid reviews in health policy and systems research

Category

Items to consider

Protocol

• Was a protocol used?

• If so, was the protocol made public, published in a journal, and/or registered in advance? (if so, provide reference and/or registration number, or link to protocol)

Overall scope

• Was the scope limited in any way?

• Were there a limited number of research or policy questions?

• Were the research questions of limited type (e.g., effectiveness only, specific populations)?

• Was the number of included studies limited?

Comprehensivenessa

• Was the search strategy limited in any way (e.g., number of databases, gray literature, date, setting, language)?

• Were there limits on the types of study included (e.g., existing systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials)?

• Was textual analysis limited (e.g., no full-text review and/or limits on the number of items extracted)?

Rigor and quality controla

• Was the process of dual study selection or dual data extraction modified or omitted?

• Was the internal or external review of the final research report limited or omitted?

Synthesisa

• Was the assessment of risk of bias or quality of evidence limited or omitted?

• Was qualitative or quantitative analysis limited or omitted?

Otherb

• When making statements about the findings of the rapid review, were the conclusions simplified or omitted?

• Is it appropriate to provide a disclaimerc and/or limitations section in context with your findings?

  1. aFocus on methodological tailoring
  2. bIt may help to consider the differences between the present rapid review and the content of a more comprehensive systematic review. This material is likely best provided in the discussion section of the rapid review report, which should include a description of any review limitations
  3. cAuthors of rapid reviews should consider a disclaimer section in the executive summary, as part of the discussion, or as a note on the cover page, to highlight these limitations and any perceived impact to the review findings. This helps to frame the limitations and to emphasize caution around interpretation [18]