title: Rapid evidence assessment: increasing the transparency of an emerging methodology.
abstract: OBJECTIVE
  Within the field of evidence-based practice, policy makers, health care professionals and consumers require timely reviews to inform decisions on efficacious health care and treatments. Rapid evidence assessment (REA), also known as rapid review, has emerged in recent years as a literature review methodology that fulfils this need. It highlights what is known in a clinical area to the target audience in a relatively short time frame.
  
  
  METHODS
  This article discusses the lack of transparency and limited critical appraisal that can occur in REA, and goes on to propose general principles for conducting a REA. The approach that we describe is consistent with the principles underlying systematic review methodology, but also makes allowances for the rapid delivery of information as required while utilizing explicit and reproducible methods at each stage.
  
  
  RESULTS
  Our method for conducting REA includes: developing an explicit research question in consultation with the end-users; clear definition of the components of the research question; development of a thorough and reproducible search strategy; development of explicit evidence selection criteria; and quality assessments and transparent decisions about the level of information to be obtained from each study. In addition, the REA may also include an assessment of the quality of the total body of evidence.
  
  
  CONCLUSIONS
  Transparent reporting of REA methodologies will provide greater clarity to end-users about how the information is obtained and about the trade-offs that are made between speed and rigour.
authors.affiliation: Phoenix Australia and Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: Tracey
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Varker
authors.affiliation: Phoenix Australia and Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: David
authors.initials: D
authors.lastname: Forbes
authors.affiliation: Phoenix Australia and Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: Lisa
authors.initials: L
authors.lastname: Dell
authors.affiliation: Optum, Sydney, New South Wales, Australia.
authors.forename: Adele
authors.initials: A
authors.lastname: Weston
authors.affiliation: Adelaide Health Technology Assessment (AHTA), School of Population Health, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia.
authors.forename: Tracy
authors.initials: T
authors.lastname: Merlin
authors.affiliation: Department of Veterans' Affairs, Canberra, Australian Capital Territory, Australia.
authors.forename: Stephanie
authors.initials: S
authors.lastname: Hodson
authors.affiliation: Phoenix Australia and Department of Psychiatry, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria, Australia.
authors.forename: Meaghan
authors.initials: M
authors.lastname: O'Donnell
mesh_terms: D035843:Biomedical Research / Q000592:standards*; D000068598:Data Accuracy; D019317:Evidence-Based Medicine / Q000592:standards*; D006801:Humans; D015588:Observer Variation; D000091402:Prohibitins; D012196:Review Literature as Topic; D013997:Time Factors
keywords: methods development; rapid evidence assessment; rapid review; review methodology