Rapid literature review: definition and methodology.

Q2 Medicine
Beata Smela, Mondher Toumi, Karolina Świerk, Clement Francois, Małgorzata Biernikiewicz, Emilie Clay, Laurent Boyer
{"title":"Rapid literature review: definition and methodology.","authors":"Beata Smela,&nbsp;Mondher Toumi,&nbsp;Karolina Świerk,&nbsp;Clement Francois,&nbsp;Małgorzata Biernikiewicz,&nbsp;Emilie Clay,&nbsp;Laurent Boyer","doi":"10.1080/20016689.2023.2241234","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p><b>Introduction:</b> 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. <b>Methods:</b> 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. <b>Results:</b> 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. <b>Conclusions:</b> 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.</p>","PeriodicalId":73811,"journal":{"name":"Journal of market access & health policy","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":0.0000,"publicationDate":"2023-01-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://ftp.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pub/pmc/oa_pdf/e6/58/ZJMA_11_2241234.PMC10392303.pdf","citationCount":"1","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Journal of market access & health policy","FirstCategoryId":"1085","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1080/20016689.2023.2241234","RegionNum":0,"RegionCategory":null,"ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q2","JCRName":"Medicine","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 1

Abstract

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.

快速文献回顾:定义和方法。
简介:快速文献综述(RLR)是系统文献综述(SLR)的替代方法,可以加快对新发表数据的分析。目的是确定和总结现有资料,说明界定RLR的不同方法和进行这种审查所采用的方法。方法:利用与靶向快速评价、设计、方法、方法学相关的关键词集及其组合,检索Medline和EMBASE数据库以及灰色文献。在检索到的3898条记录中,纳入了12篇文章。结果:2021年才制定了rlr的具体定义。就方法而言,与单反报告相比,区域审查报告应在更短的时间内使用简化的程序完成,同时保持类似的透明度水平并尽量减少偏见。RLR过程的固有组成部分应该是明确的研究问题、搜索方案、简化的研究选择过程、数据提取和质量保证。结论:对RLR的正式定义和最佳实施方法缺乏共识。以证据为基础的支持方法正在不断发展,需要做更多的工作来确定最可靠的方法。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
4.90
自引率
0.00%
发文量
0
审稿时长
14 weeks
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信