What Is a Rapid Review? Definition, Steps, Examples

Getting your Trinity Audio player ready...

Contents

• Glossary of Key Terms
• Key Takeaways
• What Is a Rapid Review?
• Why Were Rapid Reviews Developed?
• How Does a Rapid Review Differ from a Systematic Review?
• What Are the Main Types of Rapid Reviews?
• When Should You Conduct a Rapid Review?
• How Is a Rapid Review Conducted?
• What Are the Advantages and Limitations of Rapid Reviews?
• How Is a Rapid Review Different from Other Review Types?
• What Guidelines and Standards Govern Rapid Reviews?
• What Role Do Rapid Reviews Play in Healthcare Policy?
• Rapid Reviews and Artificial Intelligence: An Emerging Consideration
• Reporting a Rapid Review: What Must Be Disclosed?
• Frequently Asked Questions
• References

Glossary of Key Terms

The following terms are used throughout this guide and are defined here for quick reference.

Term	Definition
Rapid Review (RR)	A form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the systematic review process by streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner.
Systematic Review (SR)	A comprehensive, rigorous synthesis of all available evidence on a defined question, following explicit reproducible methods to minimize bias.
Knowledge Synthesis	An umbrella term for methods that compile and analyze existing research to answer a specific question, including systematic reviews, scoping reviews, and rapid reviews.
PICO / PICOS	A structured framework for defining a research question: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome, and (sometimes) Study design.
Grey Literature	Research produced outside traditional commercial or academic publishing, including government reports, conference abstracts, and policy documents.
Critical Appraisal	The systematic evaluation of a study’s design, conduct, and reporting to assess its validity and applicability.
Evidence-Informed Decision Making (EIDM)	A process of integrating the best available research evidence with contextual factors, stakeholder values, and professional expertise to guide policy or practice decisions.
PRISMA	Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: a reporting checklist widely adopted for transparent review reporting.
Risk of Bias (RoB)	An assessment of the extent to which flaws in study design, conduct, or analysis may have distorted results.
Scoping Review	A type of evidence synthesis used to map the extent and nature of evidence on a topic, without appraising study quality.

Key Takeaways

• A rapid review (RR) is a streamlined form of systematic review designed to be completed in 5 to 12 weeks rather than months or years.
• RRs follow the same foundational principles as systematic reviews but simplify or omit specific methodological steps to save time.
• They are especially valuable in healthcare for urgent policy decisions, public health emergencies, and clinical guideline updates.
• Common shortcuts include searching fewer databases, limiting search by date or language, using a single reviewer, and restricting study types.
• Simplifications introduce a trade-off: RRs are faster but carry a higher risk of missing studies or introducing bias.
• RRs are not a replacement for full systematic reviews; they are a pragmatic alternative when time and resources are constrained.
• Transparency in reporting methods is critical: reviewers must explicitly state which steps were simplified and why.
• Cochrane, WHO, and multiple academic institutions have developed guidance and reporting frameworks specifically for rapid reviews.

What Is a Rapid Review?

A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner (Garritty et al., 2020). Developed as a pragmatic alternative when decision-makers need timely answers, rapid reviews retain the transparency and systematic nature of a full systematic review while reducing the time and resource investment required.

According to Tricco et al. (2015), rapid reviews are defined as “a form of knowledge synthesis in which components of the systematic review process are simplified or omitted to produce information in a timely manner.” A formal definition was not widely adopted until 2021, and even today there is no single universally agreed-upon definition, reflecting the diversity of methods used in practice.

Rapid reviews are typically completed in 5 to 12 weeks, compared to the 6 to 24 months commonly required for a full systematic review. They are especially popular among decision-makers in healthcare settings, where emerging issues and policy questions require high-quality evidence without the luxury of extended timelines.

Alternative Names for Rapid Reviews

Rapid reviews appear in the literature under a variety of names, which can create confusion. Common alternative labels include:

Group 1	Group 2	Group 3
Rapid systematic review	Rapid evidence review	Evidence summary
Expedited review	Rapid evidence summary	Evidence review
Rapid evidence synthesis	Rapid evidence assessment	Restricted review
Restricted systematic review	Rapid realist review	Rapid literature review

Why Were Rapid Reviews Developed?

Rapid reviews emerged in response to a fundamental tension in evidence-based healthcare: the need for timely, high-quality evidence to inform decisions that cannot wait for a full systematic review. Healthcare increasingly demands rapid access to current research to ensure evidence-informed decision making and practice. Government decision-makers, clinicians, and public health authorities routinely request evidence in shortened timeframes.

Key drivers that led to the development and widespread adoption of rapid reviews include:

• Public health emergencies, including infectious disease outbreaks, where response decisions must be made within days or weeks.
• Policy cycles that operate on fixed timelines and cannot accommodate multi-year research synthesis projects.
• The growing volume of published literature, making full systematic reviews increasingly resource-intensive.
• The need to update existing evidence quickly when new research is published in fast-moving clinical areas.
• Resource constraints in low- and middle-income countries, where full systematic review capacity may be limited.

Example

During the COVID-19 pandemic, a rapid review published in The Lancet examined the psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it (Brooks et al., 2020). Completed in a matter of weeks, this review directly informed public health guidance on social support measures during lockdowns, demonstrating the real-world value of the rapid review format in an emergency context.

How Does a Rapid Review Differ from a Systematic Review?

Both rapid reviews and systematic reviews share the same foundational goal: to synthesize the best available evidence on a defined question using transparent, reproducible methods. The key difference lies in the degree of rigor applied and the time required to complete the process.

Characteristic	Systematic Review	Rapid Review
Typical duration	6 to 24 months	5 to 12 weeks
Team size	Minimum 2 to 3 reviewers required	Can be conducted by a single reviewer
Database searching	Comprehensive, multiple databases plus grey literature and hand searching	Limited to 2 to 4 databases; grey literature and hand searching may be omitted
Screening	Dual independent screening at all stages	Single reviewer; second reviewer may check a sample only
Language limits	No language restrictions (with translation if needed)	Often restricted to English-language publications
Date limits	Typically no date restriction unless clinically justified	Often restricted by publication date to recent studies
Study types	All relevant study designs	May restrict to higher-quality designs (e.g., RCTs only)
Critical appraisal	Dual assessment of all included studies	Single reviewer; may be limited to key outcomes only
Protocol registration	Strongly recommended (PROSPERO)	Recommended; PROSPERO accepts rapid review protocols
Reporting standards	PRISMA statement	PRISMA statement (no dedicated rapid review version yet available)
Risk of bias	Comprehensive dual assessment	Single reviewer; limited to most critical outcomes for decisions

Importantly, rapid reviews must not sacrifice transparency for speed. As noted in the literature, rapidity is not a justification for brevity in methods reporting; if anything, the methods section of a rapid review becomes more important because reviewers must clearly articulate which steps were simplified, omitted, or modified, and why.

What Are the Main Types of Rapid Reviews?

Rapid reviews are not a single monolithic method. They exist on a continuum between a narrative literature search and a full systematic review. The University of Melbourne classifies rapid reviews within a broader “Rapid Review Family” that includes several distinct sub-types.

Review Type	Description	Best Used When
Rapid Review	Streamlined systematic review; searches are limited but structured; some steps simplified.	A focused clinical or policy question must be answered within weeks.
Rapid Evidence Assessment (REA)	Similar to a rapid review but often more explicitly policy-oriented; used by government agencies.	Government or public health policy requires a time-bound evidence base.
Rapid Realist Review	Applies realist synthesis methods (exploring what works, for whom, and in what contexts) in an expedited format.	Complex social or health interventions where context matters as much as outcomes.
Rapid Literature Review (RLR)	A broad term encompassing any accelerated review of the literature, with varying degrees of methodological rigor.	Background briefings or preliminary evidence mapping before a full review.

When Should You Conduct a Rapid Review?

A rapid review is the appropriate methodology when decision-makers need timely evidence and a full systematic review is not feasible within the required timeframe. Cochrane states that rapid reviews should be driven primarily by requests for timely evidence for decision-making purposes, including to address urgent and emergent health issues and questions deemed to be of high priority.

Rapid reviews are well suited for the following situations:

• New and emerging topics where a preliminary evidence base needs to be established quickly.
• Updating previously completed systematic reviews when new evidence has emerged.
• Policy development, implementation, or assessment where a fixed decision deadline exists.
• Clinical guideline updates requiring current evidence before an existing guideline expires.
• Public health emergencies requiring immediate evidence synthesis.
• Situations where a full systematic review on the topic already exists and the rapid review can draw on and update it.

Example

A hospital ethics committee is asked to advise on the use of a new COVID-19 treatment within 30 days. A full systematic review would take 6 to 12 months. A rapid review can search PubMed, Embase, and the Cochrane Library, limit results to randomized controlled trials published in the past 18 months, screen with one reviewer, and deliver a synthesized evidence summary within the required window.

Grant and Booth (2009) suggest rapid reviews are not appropriate when the evidence base is large and heterogeneous, when the question carries high-stakes policy implications that demand full rigor, or when a previous systematic review is not available to anchor the search.

How Is a Rapid Review Conducted?

The rapid review process mirrors the systematic review process but with targeted simplifications at one or more stages. The NCCMT Rapid Review Guidebook (Dobbins, 2017) and Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group guidance describe the following core steps.

Step 1: Define the Practice Question

A clear, focused, and answerable research question is the foundation of any rapid review. The PICO(S) framework is the standard tool for this:

Element	Stands For	Example (General)	Example (Healthcare)
P	Population	Adults with Type 2 diabetes	Adults aged 40 to 70 with poorly controlled Type 2 diabetes
I	Intervention	Mobile health app	Smartphone-based glucose monitoring application
C	Comparator	Standard care	Usual care including standard glucometer
O	Outcome	Blood sugar control	HbA1c reduction at 3 and 6 months
S	Study type	RCTs	Randomized controlled trials published 2018 to 2024

Before committing to a rapid review, it is also important to check whether a recent systematic review already exists on the topic. If one does, a rapid review may serve to update rather than replicate that work, saving significant time.

Step 2: Develop an Inclusion and Exclusion Protocol

Eligibility criteria define which studies will be included in the review. In a rapid review, criteria are often more restrictive than in a full systematic review. Common restrictions include:

• Limiting to specific study designs (e.g., RCTs only, or excluding case reports).
• Restricting by publication date (e.g., last 5 to 10 years).
• Restricting by language (usually English-language publications only).
• Restricting by geography or population (e.g., high-income countries only).
• Limiting to peer-reviewed publications, omitting grey literature.

Step 3: Search for Research Evidence

The search strategy in a rapid review is deliberately narrower than in a full systematic review. Key differences include:

• Searching 2 to 4 major databases rather than 10 or more. Common choices are PubMed/MEDLINE, Embase, and the Cochrane Central Register of Controlled Trials.
• Limiting or omitting grey literature searching.
• Omitting hand searching of journals and reference lists.
• Using fewer search terms or a less complex search string.
• Peer review of the search strategy is still recommended to minimize missed evidence.

Annotated Example

A rapid review on telemedicine for chronic pain management might search PubMed and Embase using terms such as “telemedicine,” “telehealth,” “chronic pain,” and “pain management,” limited to English-language RCTs published between 2015 and 2024. Cochrane CENTRAL may be added as a third source. Grey literature and hand searching of pain management journals are omitted given time constraints, and this omission is explicitly stated in the methods.

Step 4: Screen and Select Studies

Study selection in a rapid review is commonly streamlined in the following ways:

• A single reviewer screens titles and abstracts, rather than the dual independent screening required in a full systematic review.
• A second reviewer may check a random sample (typically 10 to 20 percent) of excluded records to identify systematic errors.
• Full-text review may also be performed by a single reviewer with spot-checking by a second.

Step 5: Appraise Study Quality

Critical appraisal assesses the risk of bias in included studies. In a rapid review, the appraisal is often simplified:

• A single reviewer conducts appraisal rather than two independent reviewers.
• Appraisal may be limited to the most important outcomes for decision-making, rather than all reported outcomes.
• Standardized tools such as the Cochrane Risk of Bias Tool (for RCTs) or the CASP checklists are still used.

Step 6: Extract Data

Data extraction involves pulling relevant information from included studies into a standardized template. In rapid reviews:

• A single reviewer extracts data, with verification by a second reviewer for accuracy on a subset.
• Data extraction may focus on primary outcomes of interest only.
• Existing systematic reviews may be used as data sources to reduce extraction workload.

Step 7: Synthesize the Evidence

Evidence synthesis brings together findings across included studies. In rapid reviews, the synthesis is commonly:

• Narrative in format, organized around the PICO question, rather than a quantitative meta-analysis.
• A meta-analysis is conducted only when studies are similar enough in population, intervention, and outcome to pool statistically.
• GRADE (Grading of Recommendations Assessment, Development and Evaluation) may be applied by a single reviewer to assess certainty of evidence, with verification by a second.

Step 8: Write, Publish, and Report

Reporting standards for rapid reviews remain largely aligned with systematic review reporting. Key considerations include:

• The PRISMA statement is recommended for reporting until a dedicated Rapid Review PRISMA extension becomes available.
• The methods section must explicitly state which steps were simplified, omitted, or modified and explain the rationale.
• Protocol registration in PROSPERO is recommended prior to commencing the review.
• Many rapid reviews are conducted internally within organizations and are not published in the peer-reviewed literature; those that are published must be transparent about their methodological limitations.

What Are the Advantages and Limitations of Rapid Reviews?

Rapid reviews offer important benefits but also carry inherent limitations that must be acknowledged in both the conduct and interpretation of the review findings.

Advantages

Limitations

Shorter timeframe delivers evidence when it is needed most.Resource-efficient: requires fewer reviewers and less institutional support.Well suited to supporting urgent policy and clinical decision-making.Can draw on existing systematic reviews to accelerate synthesis.Valuable for exploring new and emerging topics.Maintains a level of systematic structure and transparency absent from informal literature reviews.

Search is less comprehensive; relevant studies may be missed.Single-reviewer processes increase the risk of bias in selection and extraction.Language and date restrictions may skew results.Findings can only be interpreted with caution due to methodological simplifications.Not a substitute for a full systematic review on high-stakes questions.Results may differ from those of a corresponding full systematic review.Lack of grey literature searching may miss important unpublished evidence.

Research comparing rapid reviews to full systematic reviews shows that the degree of difference in results varies substantially depending on which rapid review methods are used. Searching PubMed only was found to carry the smallest risk of changed results, while more aggressive restrictions increase the risk of divergent findings. Decision-makers should be aware that guideline developers and policy makers in one survey accepted a median tolerable risk of a wrong answer of only 10%.

How Is a Rapid Review Different from Other Review Types?

Researchers choosing a review methodology must understand where rapid reviews sit relative to other common review types in healthcare.

Review Type	Key Features	Main Difference from Rapid Review
Systematic Review	Comprehensive, reproducible, dual reviewer, no shortcuts.	Takes much longer; more thorough; used when full rigor is essential.
Scoping Review	Maps the extent of evidence on a broad topic; does not appraise quality.	Scoping reviews map breadth; rapid reviews address focused questions with appraisal.
Narrative Review	Descriptive; no systematic search; author selects sources.	Rapid reviews are systematic and transparent; narrative reviews are not.
Umbrella Review	Synthesizes existing systematic reviews on a topic.	Umbrella reviews use SRs as their unit of analysis; rapid reviews use primary studies.
Integrative Review	Synthesizes experimental and non-experimental studies; broader methodology.	Rapid reviews are time-bounded; integrative reviews are not specifically constrained by speed.

What Guidelines and Standards Govern Rapid Reviews?

Rapid reviews are the subject of a growing body of methodological guidance. Several authoritative organizations have developed frameworks that reviewers should consult before commencing a rapid review.

• Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group: Publishes a series of methodology papers in BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine covering all stages of rapid review conduct, including searching, screening, synthesis, and reporting. Cochrane has established specific criteria for when Cochrane Rapid Reviews are commissioned: they should be driven by requests for timely evidence for urgent and emergent health issues.
• Garritty et al. (2020), published in the Journal of Clinical Epidemiology: Provides a methodological framework and checklist for conducting and reporting rapid reviews, developed through an international consensus process.
• Lerner et al. (2021): Offers a protocol template specifically designed for rapid reviews.
• National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT): The NCCMT Rapid Review Guidebook (Dobbins, 2017) provides a step-by-step guide grounded in evidence-informed decision making for public health settings.
• WHO Eastern Mediterranean Region Training Package: The WHO EMRO provides free training materials covering the differentiation of rapid reviews from other synthesis methods, steps in conducting rapid reviews, and how scope and methodology may vary.
• Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research (AHPSR): Published “Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide,” particularly relevant for low- and middle-income country health policy contexts.
• PROSPERO: The international prospective register of systematic reviews accepts rapid review protocols. Registration is strongly recommended prior to commencing the review.

What Role Do Rapid Reviews Play in Healthcare Policy?

Rapid reviews have become an integral part of health policy and systems research worldwide. Policymakers, health technology assessment bodies, and clinical guideline developers all rely on rapid reviews as a first-line evidence tool.

Key roles of rapid reviews in healthcare policy include:

• Supporting national and international health technology assessment (HTA) processes when new drugs, devices, or interventions are reviewed for reimbursement or approval.
• Informing clinical practice guidelines when evidence needs to be updated within a fixed revision cycle.
• Guiding public health responses to emerging infectious diseases, where evidence accumulates rapidly and decisions cannot wait.
• Supporting commissioning decisions in healthcare systems where new service models or care pathways are being evaluated.
• Enabling knowledge users (including patients, clinicians, and managers) to be involved in shaping the review question and interpreting findings.

Example

During the Zika virus outbreak of 2015 to 2016, public health authorities needed rapid evidence on the link between Zika infection in pregnancy and adverse fetal outcomes. Rapid reviews synthesized the emerging epidemiological literature within weeks, informing travel advisories and antenatal care recommendations before a full systematic review was feasible.

Research shows that knowledge user involvement, including the involvement of patients, clinicians, and policymakers in setting the review question and interpreting findings, remains uncommon in published rapid reviews. This represents an important area for improvement, as stakeholder engagement improves the relevance and uptake of findings in decision-making.

Rapid Reviews and Artificial Intelligence: An Emerging Consideration

The integration of artificial intelligence (AI) tools into the rapid review process is an emerging development with both promise and risk. In 2025, the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group published a position statement on the responsible integration of AI in rapid reviews.

Potential AI applications in rapid reviews include:

• Automated title and abstract screening using machine learning classifiers trained on include and exclude decisions.
• Natural language processing for data extraction from full-text articles.
• Automated de-duplication of search results across databases.
• Text summarization of included studies to accelerate evidence synthesis.

However, the Cochrane position statement emphasizes that AI tools must be used responsibly and transparently, with human oversight at every stage. AI-assisted screening in particular carries the risk of systematic errors that may not be detected without a human check. Any use of AI tools in a rapid review must be reported in the methods section.

Reporting a Rapid Review: What Must Be Disclosed?

Transparency in reporting is not optional in a rapid review; it is a defining characteristic that distinguishes the rapid review from an informal or unsystematic literature search. Reviewers must be explicit about the following in the methods section:

• Which databases were searched and why others were excluded.
• The date range and language restrictions applied.
• Whether grey literature and hand searching were conducted or omitted.
• How many reviewers screened and extracted data, and whether any verification by a second reviewer was performed.
• Which quality appraisal tools were used and how appraisal was conducted.
• How the synthesis was performed and whether meta-analysis was attempted.
• What limitations the chosen shortcuts introduce and how they affect the interpretation of findings.

The PRISMA statement is currently the recommended reporting framework. Reviewers should use it with an acknowledgment that some items may not fully apply given the streamlined design. A dedicated PRISMA extension for rapid reviews is under development.

Frequently Asked Questions

Can a single researcher complete a rapid review on their own?

Yes, a rapid review does not require a team, unlike a full systematic review. A single reviewer can complete all stages including searching, screening, appraisal, and synthesis. However, the use of a single reviewer increases the risk of bias and errors going undetected. Best practice recommends that at least a sample of decisions (for example, 10 to 20 percent of screened records) be verified by a second reviewer where possible, even if the primary work is done by one person.

Is a rapid review less credible than a systematic review?

A rapid review is not inherently less credible, but it is explicitly less comprehensive. The credibility of a rapid review depends on how transparently the methods are reported and how honestly the limitations are acknowledged. A well-conducted rapid review with clear disclosure of shortcuts is far more credible than an informal narrative review with no documentation of methods. Rapid reviews are considered credible and are widely published in leading peer-reviewed journals.

Does a rapid review need to be registered before starting?

Registration is strongly recommended but not always mandatory. PROSPERO, the international prospective register for systematic reviews, accepts rapid review protocols. Registering a protocol before commencing the review helps prevent outcome-reporting bias and increases the transparency and credibility of the final product. Where registration is not possible due to extreme time constraints, the reviewer should at minimum document the protocol internally and make it available on request.

What happens when a rapid review and a full systematic review reach different conclusions?

This does happen and is one of the known limitations of the rapid review approach. Research shows that the degree of discordance depends heavily on which methods are streamlined. Single-database searches and date restrictions carry the highest risk of divergent results. When a discordance is discovered (for example, when a full systematic review is later conducted on the same topic), the rapid review findings should be updated and the reasons for any difference should be explored and disclosed. Decision-makers who acted on rapid review evidence should be informed of the updated findings.

Are rapid reviews only used in healthcare?

No. Although rapid reviews originated and are most common in healthcare and public health contexts, they are increasingly used in social sciences, education policy, environmental science, and corporate research and development. The core rationale (synthesizing evidence quickly and systematically when a full review is not feasible) applies across many domains. The University of South Florida, for example, includes rapid reviews in its systematic review guidance for social science researchers.

How long does a rapid review typically take?

Most rapid reviews are completed in 5 to 12 weeks. However, the timeline varies considerably depending on the scope of the question, the volume of literature, the availability of reviewers, and how many steps are simplified. Some rapid reviews commissioned by government agencies in urgent situations may be completed in as little as one to two weeks, with significant further simplification of the methodology. Others may take three to four months if the topic is complex and the review team is cautious about omitting steps.

Can a rapid review be updated once completed?

Yes, and this is one of the scenarios where rapid reviews are most useful. A rapid review may be the first synthesis conducted on a topic, with the explicit understanding that it will be updated as more evidence accumulates. Living systematic reviews (continuously updated reviews) represent the most intensive version of this approach. Rapid reviews can also be used to update an existing older systematic review by searching only for studies published after the previous review’s search date.

What do researchers mean when they say a rapid review is not peer-reviewed?

Many rapid reviews are produced as internal reports for organizations such as health ministries, hospital systems, or public health agencies and are not submitted to academic journals for peer review. This means they may not undergo the external scrutiny that journal peer review provides. Researchers on community forums frequently note that the quality of such internal rapid reviews is difficult to assess because methods are not always publicly disclosed. When a rapid review is published in a peer-reviewed journal, it does undergo external review, though the peer reviewer may or may not have expertise in systematic review methodology.

References

1. Smela B, Toumi M, Swierk K, Francois C, Biernikiewicz M, Clay E, Boyer L. Rapid literature review: definition and methodology. Journal of Market Access and Health Policy. 2023;11(1):2241234.
2. University of Melbourne Library. Rapid Review. In: Which Review Is That? Library Guides. Updated 2026.
3. James Cook University Library. Introduction to Rapid Reviews. Library Guides. Updated 2026.
4. University of Toronto Gerstein Science Information Centre. What Are Rapid Reviews? In: Knowledge Syntheses: Systematic and Scoping Reviews and Other Review Types. Research Guides. Updated 2026.
5. Stanford School of Medicine Lane Medical Library. Rapid Reviews. In: Types of Reviews. Research Guides. Updated 2026.
6. Covidence. What Is the Difference Between Systematic Reviews and Rapid Reviews? Covidence Blog. 2024.
7. World Health Organization Eastern Mediterranean Regional Office (WHO EMRO). Training Package for Rapid Reviews. Evidence and Data to Policy Programme.
8. University of South Florida Libraries. Rapid Review. In: Systematic Reviews for Social Sciences. LibGuides. Updated 2026.
9. Dobbins M. Rapid Review Guidebook: Steps for Conducting a Rapid Review. Version 1.2. Hamilton, ON: National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools (NCCMT); 2017.
10. BMJ Evidence-Based Medicine. Rapid Reviews Methods Series. Updated 2025.
11. Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, Affengruber L, Stevens A. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology. 2021;130:13-22.
12. Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, et al. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Medicine. 2015;13:224.
13. Brooks SK, Webster RK, Smith LE, et al. The psychological impact of quarantine and how to reduce it: rapid review of the evidence. Lancet. 2020;395(10227):912-920.
14. Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Hamel C, et al. Responsible Integration of Artificial Intelligence in Rapid Reviews: A Position Statement From the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Cochrane Evidence Synthesis and Methods. 2025;4:e70063.
15. Nussbaumer-Streit B, Ledinger D, Kien C, et al. Knowledge user involvement is still uncommon in published rapid reviews: a meta-research cross-sectional study. Research Synthesis Methods. 2025;16(6):876-899.