Skip to main content

Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment

  • Amber Watt (a1), Alun Cameron (a1), Lana Sturm (a1), Timothy Lathlean (a1), Wendy Babidge (a1), Stephen Blamey (a2), Karen Facey (a3), David Hailey (a4), Inger Norderhaug (a5) and Guy Maddern (a6)...

Objectives: 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.

Hide All
1. Aidelsburger P, Felder S, Wasem J. Guidelines for rapid health-economic HTAs. Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Meet. 2002;18. Abstract 7.
2. Best L, Stevens A, Colin-Jones D. Rapid and responsive health technology assessment: The development and evaluation process in the South and West region of England. J Clinic Effectiv. 1997;2:5156.
3. Corabian P, Harstall C. Rapid assessments provide acceptable quality advice. Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Meet. 2002;18. Abstract 70.
4. Egger M, Juni P, Bartlett C, Holenstein F, Sterne J. How important are comprehensive literature searches and the assessment of trial quality in systematic reviews? Empirical study. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:176.
5. Eisenberg JM, Zarin D. Health technology assessment in the United States. Past, present, and future. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2002;18:192198.
6. Hailey D. Health technology assessment. Singapore Med J. 2006;47:187192.
7. Hailey D, Corabian P, Harstall C, Schneider W. The use and impact of rapid health technology assessments. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2000;16:651656.
8. Lehoux P, Tailliez S, Denis J-L, Hivon M. Redefining health technology assessment in Canada: Diversification of products and contextualization of findings. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2004;20:325336.
9. McGregor M, Brophy JM. End-user involvement in health technology assessment (HTA) development: A way to increase impact. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2005;21:263267.
10. Royle P, Milne R. Literature searching for randomized controlled trials used in Cochrane reviews: Rapid versus exhaustive searching. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2003;19:591603.
11. Scott A, Harstall C. Brief reports versus full systematic reviews: When is enough really enough? Annu Meet Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Int Soc Technol Assess Health Care Meet. 2003;19. Abstract 8.
12. Stevens A, Milne R, Burls A. Health technology assessment: History and demand. J Public Health Med. 2003;25:98101.
Recommend this journal

Email your librarian or administrator to recommend adding this journal to your organisation's collection.

International Journal of Technology Assessment in Health Care
  • ISSN: 0266-4623
  • EISSN: 1471-6348
  • URL: /core/journals/international-journal-of-technology-assessment-in-health-care
Please enter your name
Please enter a valid email address
Who would you like to send this to? *



Altmetric attention score

Full text views

Total number of HTML views: 6
Total number of PDF views: 172 *
Loading metrics...

Abstract views

Total abstract views: 542 *
Loading metrics...

* Views captured on Cambridge Core between September 2016 - 19th November 2017. This data will be updated every 24 hours.