Assessing the validity of a rapid review against a systematic literature review. A comparison of systematic literature reviews done by Cochrane with rapid reviews and the impact on meta-analyses results.

INTRODUCTION: Rapid reviews (RRs) offer a less rigorous and methodical approach to the process of reviewing literature in comparison to systematic reviews (SRs), which are currently a gold standard. MATERIALS AND METHODS: Three different, expedited strategies of the review process were designed in the different scopes, already reviewed in Cochrane's SRs. Then, the results of our literature searches and the study selection process were compared to the ones from SRs. The final step was assessing the impact of losing some studies on the final results of meta-analyses. RESULTS: In RR1, the initial number of references to be reviewed was reduced by half, and the inclusion list was recreated with 84% efficiency. Three out of 19 studies were missed, all having high risk of bias. Studies missed in RR1 were included in Cochrane's meta-analyses for 23 separate outcomes, and their lack impacted significantly the final results, or the possibility to run meta-analyses, in four cases. In RR2, 89% of trials included in the SR were captured (24/27); missing the three studies did not impact the final results of the meta-analyses. In RR3, the list of included studies overlapped completely with Cochrane's, despite a significantly lower workload. CONCLUSIONS: A prompt and cost-effective methodology may lead to the identification of pertinent evidence in support of healthcare policy; however, it is essential to conscientiously account for potential biases in the analysis.

Systematic literature reviews over the years.

Purpose: Nowadays, systematic literature reviews (SLRs) and meta-analyses are often placed at the top of the study hierarchy of evidence. The main objective of this paper is to evaluate the trends in SLRs of randomized controlled trials (RCTs) throughout the years. Methods: Medline database was searched, using a highly focused search strategy. Each paper was coded according to a specific ICD-10 code; the number of RCTs included in each evaluated SLR was also retrieved. All SLRs analyzing RCTs were included. Protocols, commentaries, or errata were excluded. No restrictions were applied. Results: A total of 7,465 titles and abstracts were analyzed, from which 6,892 were included for further analyses. There was a gradual increase in the number of annual published SLRs, with a significant increase in published articles during the last several years. Overall, the most frequently analyzed areas were diseases of the circulatory system (n = 750) and endocrine, nutritional, and metabolic diseases (n = 734). The majority of SLRs included between 11 and 50 RCTs each. Conclusions: The recognition of SLRs' usefulness is growing at an increasing speed, which is reflected by the growing number of published studies. The most frequently evaluated diseases are in alignment with leading causes of death and disability worldwide.

Rapid literature review: definition and methodology.

Introduction: A rapid literature review (RLR) is an alternative to systematic literature review (SLR) that can speed up the analysis of newly published data. The objective was to identify and summarize available information regarding different approaches to defining RLR and the methodology applied to the conduct of such reviews. Methods: The Medline and EMBASE databases, as well as the grey literature, were searched using the set of keywords and their combination related to the targeted and rapid review, as well as design, approach, and methodology. Of the 3,898 records retrieved, 12 articles were included. Results: Specific definition of RLRs has only been developed in 2021. In terms of methodology, the RLR should be completed within shorter timeframes using simplified procedures in comparison to SLRs, while maintaining a similar level of transparency and minimizing bias. Inherent components of the RLR process should be a clear research question, search protocol, simplified process of study selection, data extraction, and quality assurance. Conclusions: There is a lack of consensus on the formal definition of the RLR and the best approaches to perform it. The evidence-based supporting methods are evolving, and more work is needed to define the most robust approaches.