title: Rapid review programs to support health care and policy decision making: a descriptive analysis of processes and methods.
abstract: BACKGROUND
  Health care decision makers often need to make decisions in limited timeframes and cannot await the completion of a full evidence review. Rapid reviews (RRs), utilizing streamlined systematic review methods, are increasingly being used to synthesize the evidence with a shorter turnaround time. Our primary objective was to describe the processes and methods used internationally to produce RRs. In addition, we sought to understand the underlying themes associated with these programs.
  
  
  METHODS
  We contacted representatives of international RR programs from a broad realm in health care to gather information about the methods and processes used to produce RRs. The responses were summarized narratively to understand the characteristics associated with their processes and methods. The summaries were compared and contrasted to highlight potential themes and trends related to the different RR programs.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Twenty-nine international RR programs were included in our sample with a broad organizational representation from academia, government, research institutions, and non-for-profit organizations. Responses revealed that the main objectives for RRs were to inform decision making with regards to funding health care technologies, services and policy, and program development. Central themes that influenced the methods used by RR programs, and report type and dissemination were the imposed turnaround time to complete a report, resources available, the complexity and sensitivity of the research topics, and permission from the requestor.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Our study confirmed that there is no standard approach to conduct RRs. Differences in processes and methods across programs may be the result of the novelty of RR methods versus other types of evidence syntheses, customization of RRs for various decision makers, and definition of 'rapid' by organizations, since it impacts both the timelines and the evidence synthesis methods. Future research should investigate the impact of current RR methods and reporting to support informed health care decision making, the effects of potential biases that may be introduced with streamlined methods, and the effectiveness of RR reporting guidelines on transparency.
authors: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 600-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5S8, Canada. Juliep@cadth.ca.|Department of Epidemiology and Community Medicine, Faculty of Medicine, University of Ottawa, 451 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8 M5, Canada. Juliep@cadth.ca.
authors: Julie
authors: J
authors: Polisena
authors: Knowledge Synthesis Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8 L6, Canada. cgarritty@ohri.ca.
authors: Chantelle
authors: C
authors: Garritty
authors: Canadian Agency for Drugs and Technologies in Health, 600-865 Carling Avenue, Ottawa, Ontario, K1S 5S8, Canada. chrisk@cadth.ca.
authors: Chris
authors: C
authors: Kamel
authors: Knowledge Synthesis Group, Ottawa Hospital Research Institute, 501 Smyth Road, Ottawa, Ontario, K1H 8 L6, Canada. adstevens@ohri.ca.
authors: Adrienne
authors: A
authors: Stevens
authors: George and Fay Yee Centre for Healthcare Innovation, University of Manitoba/Winnipeg Regional Health Authority, GE-706 - 820 Sherbrook Street, Winnipeg, Manitoba, R3A 1R9, Canada. ahmed_abou-setta@umanitoba.ca.
authors: Ahmed M
authors: AM
authors: Abou-Setta
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research; D003657:Decision Making; D003661:Decision Support Techniques; D003695:Delivery of Health Care; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine; D006291:Health Policy; D006801:Humans; D038622:Internationality; D015201:Meta-Analysis as Topic; D009938:Organizations; D011050:Policy Making; D012107:Research Design; D058028:Research Report