Table 2 Interim guidance for rapid reviews
1.Engage with the review requester early and throughout the review process to understand needs and expectations and collaborate with the requester in making decisions about how to approach the review |
|---|
2.Use a team experienced in doing systematic reviews to conduct the rapid review |
3.Develop a protocol, including PICO (population, intervention, comparator, outcome) elements, key questions, and the planned approach, to guide the review and to track any changes that are made as the review progresses (and their rationale). Protocols registration is strongly encouraged |
4.Search at least two electronic databases for most topics; use a targeted gray literature search if the topic is not well addressed in published articles |
5.If timeline and resources allow, use two reviewers for study selection |
6.Perform data extraction and risk-of-bias assessment using one researcher; if time and resources allow, a sample of articles should be checked by a second one |
7.Consider the use of innovative technologies that can help to make particular review steps more efficient |
8.In conducting the knowledge synthesis, include both a typical results component (with description of included studies, their results, reasons for any differences in results across studies, and the quality of the evidence from those studies, perhaps with GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) rating for the overall quality of evidence) and a discussion component describing limitations of the evidence and the review, overall conclusions, recommendations, and implications for policy- and decision-makers |
9.When possible, obtain peer review and use feedback from the requester and other stakeholders to inform and improve future knowledge synthesis |
10.Consult with the requester about the best report format and presentation that will support use of the review and subsequent decision-making. Use report templates and make the report publically available whenever possible |