Authors' objectives: The objectives of this report were: To assess current practice in the preparation of rapid reviews by HTA organisations nationally and internationally, To examine the current evidence base pertaining to the methodology of rapid reviews To determine if there are differences in the essential conclusions of rapid and full reviews on the same topic.

Authors' results and conclusions: Survey of HTA organisations - 23 surveys were returned, with 18 agencies reporting the production of 36 rapid review products. Collectively, the most common reason for conducting a rapid review was in response to political urgency and/or to support decisions (44%). Search strategies varied widely; however, there was an overall focus on identifying higher levels of evidence wherever possible. The components of reviews also varied between product types, with full reviews more likely to report clinical outcomes (100% vs. 94%), examine economic factors (92% vs. 72%) and consider social issues (85% vs. 53%). Literature on rapid review methodology - A total of 11 relevant studies were identified. None of the included studies detailed guidelines for the methodology underpinning rapid reviews; rather, many offered examples and discussion surrounding the complexity of the area. Authors suggested restricted research questions and truncated search strategies as potential methods by which to limit the time taken to complete a review. Identification and comparison of rapid reviews and full systematic reviews - Comparisons were carried out between full and rapid reviews on the topics of drug eluting stents, lung volume reduction surgery, living donor liver transplantation and hip resurfacing. Axiomatic differences between the products were identified; however, there were no instances in which the essential conclusions of the different reviews were opposed. The full reviews consistently provided greater depth of information and more detailed recommendations pertaining to the implementation of each particular health technology.

Authors' recommendations: Survey of HTA organisations - 23 surveys were returned, with 18 agencies reporting the production of 36 rapid review products. Collectively, the most common reason for conducting a rapid review was in response to political urgency and/or to support decisions (44%). Search strategies varied widely; however, there was an overall focus on identifying higher levels of evidence wherever possible. The components of reviews also varied between product types, with full reviews more likely to report clinical outcomes (100% vs. 94%), examine economic factors (92% vs. 72%) and consider social issues (85% vs. 53%). Literature on rapid review methodology - A total of 11 relevant studies were identified. None of the included studies detailed guidelines for the methodology underpinning rapid reviews; rather, many offered examples and discussion surrounding the complexity of the area. Authors suggested restricted research questions and truncated search strategies as potential methods by which to limit the time taken to complete a review. Identification and comparison of rapid reviews and full systematic reviews - Comparisons were carried out between full and rapid reviews on the topics of drug eluting stents, lung volume reduction surgery, living donor liver transplantation and hip resurfacing. Axiomatic differences between the products were identified; however, there were no instances in which the essential conclusions of the different reviews were opposed. The full reviews consistently provided greater depth of information and more detailed recommendations pertaining to the implementation of each particular health technology.

Authors' methods: Review

Project Status: Completed

URL for project: http://www.surgeons.org/asernip-s/publications.htm

Year Published: 2007

URL for published report: n/a

English language abstract: An English language summary is available

Publication Type: Not Assigned

Country: Australia

Organisation Name: Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures-Surgical

Contact Address: ASERNIP-S 24 King William Street, Kent Town SA 5067 Australia Tel: +61 8 8219 0900

Contact Name: racs.asernip@surgeons.org

Contact Email: racs.asernip@surgeons.org

Copyright: Australian Safety and Efficacy Register of New Interventional Procedures - Surgical