title: Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: an inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  This review assessed current practice in the preparation of rapid reviews by health technology assessment (HTA) organizations, both internationally and in the Australian context, and evaluated the available peer-reviewed literature pertaining to the methodology used in the preparation of these reviews.
  
  
  METHODS
  A survey tool was developed and distributed to a total of fifty International Network of Agencies for Health Technology Assessment (INAHTA) members and other selected HTA organizations. Data on a broad range of themes related to the conduct of rapid reviews were collated, discussed narratively, and subjected to simple statistical analysis where appropriate. Systematic searches of the Cochrane Library, EMBASE, MEDLINE, and the Australian Medical Index were undertaken in March 2007 to identify literature pertaining to rapid review methodology. Comparative studies, guidelines, program evaluations, methods studies, commentaries, and surveys were considered for inclusion.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Twenty-three surveys were returned (46 percent), with eighteen agencies reporting on thirty-six rapid review products. Axiomatic trends were identified, but there was little cohesion between organizations regarding the contents, methods, and definition of a rapid review. The twelve studies identified by the systematic literature search did not specifically address the methodology underpinning rapid review; rather, many highlighted the complexity of the area. Authors suggested restricted research questions and truncated search strategies as methods to limit the time taken to complete a review.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Rather than developing a formalized methodology by which to conduct rapid reviews, agencies should work toward increasing the transparency of the methods used for each review. It is perhaps the appropriate use, not the appropriate methodology, of a rapid review that requires future consideration.
authors.affiliation: Royal Australasian College of Surgeons, Australia. amber.watt@surgeons.org
authors.forename: Amber
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Watt
authors.forename: Alun
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Cameron
authors.forename: Lana
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Sturm
authors.forename: Timothy
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Lathlean
authors.forename: Wendy
authors.initials: W
authors.lastname: Babidge
authors.forename: Stephen
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Blamey
authors.forename: Karen
authors.initials: K
authors.lastname: Facey
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Hailey
authors.forename: Inger
authors.initials: I
authors.lastname: Norderhaug
authors.forename: Guy
authors.initials: G
authors.lastname: Maddern
mesh_terms: D006801:Humans; D010380:Peer Review; D011640:Public Policy; D012952:Societies; D013673:Technology Assessment, Biomedical / Q000379:methods* / Q000458:organization & administration*; D013997:Time Factors