Guyatt, GH, Sackett, DL, Sinclair, JC, et al.
Users’ guides to the medical literature: IX. A method for grading health care recommendations. JAMA. 1995;274:1800–1804.
Wallace, BC, Dahabreh, IJ, Schmid, CH, Lau, J, Trikalinos, TA. Modernizing the systematic review process to inform comparative effectiveness: Tools and methods. J Comp Effect Res. 2013;2:273–282.
Dobbins, M, Jack, S, Thomas, H, Kothari, A. Public health decision-makers’ informational needs and preferences for receiving research evidence. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2007;4:156–163.
Perleth, M, Lühmann, D, Gibis, B, Droste, S. “Rapid Assessments”: Schnelle Bewertung medizinischer Technologien. ZaefQ. 2001;95:76–80.
Oxman, AD, Schünemann, HJ, Fretheim, A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 8. Synthesis and presentation of evidence. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:20.
Ganann, R, Ciliska, D, Thomas, H. Expediting systematic reviews: Methods and implications of rapid reviews. Implement Sci. 2010;5:56.
Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al.
Rapid versus full systematic reviews: Validity in clinical practice?
ANZ J Surg. 2008;78:1037–1040.
Martel, G, Duhaime, S, Barkun, JS, et al.
The quality of research synthesis in surgery: The case of laparoscopic surgery for colorectal cancer. Syst Rev. 2012;1:14.
Shea, BJ, Grimshaw, JM, Wells, GA, et al.
Development of AMSTAR: A measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2007;7:10.
Shea, BJ, Bouter, LM, Peterson, J, et al.
External validation of a measurement tool to assess systematic reviews (AMSTAR). PLoS One. 2007;2:e1350.
Shea, BJ, Hamel, C, Wells, GA, et al.
AMSTAR is a reliable and valid measurement tool to assess the methodological quality of systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2009;62:1013–1020.
Hill, R, Bagust, A, Bakhai, A, et al.
Coronary artery stents: A rapid systematic review and economic evaluation. Health Technol Assess. 2004;8:iii–iv, 1–242.
Jobanputra, P, Parry, D, Fry-Smith, A, Burls, A. Effectiveness of autologous chondrocyte transplantation for hyaline cartilage defects in knees: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2001;5:1–57.
Kim, DG, Choi, YY, An, JY, et al.
Comparing the short-term outcomes of totally intracorporeal gastroduodenostomy with extracorporeal gastroduodenostomy after laparoscopic distal gastrectomy for gastric cancer: A single surgeon's experience and a rapid systematic review with meta-analysis. Surg Endosc. 2013;27:3153–3161.
Meads, C, Cummins, C, Jolly, K, et al.
Coronary artery stents in the treatment of ischaemic heart disease: A rapid and systematic review. Health Technol Assess. 2000;4:1–153.
Migliore, A, Jefferson, T, Cerbo, M, Abraha, I, Montedori, A. Implantable devices for the closure of patent foramen ovale in adults: An Italian rapid health technology assessment. Expert Rev Med Devices. 2014;11:151–161.
Parkes, J, Bryant, J, Milne, R. Implantable cardioverter-defibrillators in arrhythmias: A rapid and systematic review of effectiveness. Heart. 2002;87:438–442.
Harker, J, Kleijnen, J. What is a rapid review? A methodological exploration of rapid reviews in Health Technology Assessments. Int J Evid Based Healthc. 2012;10:397–410.
Da Costa, BR, Cevallos, M, Altman, DG, Rutjes, AW, Egger, M. Uses and misuses of the STROBE statement: Bibliographic study. BMJ Open. 2011;1:e000048.
Buchberger, B, von Elm, E, Gartlehner, G, et al.
Assessment of risk of bias in controlled studies. Bundesgesundheitsblatt Gesundheitsforschung Gesundheitsschutz. 2014;57:1432–1438.
Dreier, M, Borutta, B, Stahmeyer, J, Krauth, C, Walter, U. Comparison of tools for assessing the methodological quality of primary and secondary studies in health technology assessment reports in Germany. GMS Health Technol Assess. 2010;6:Doc07.
Buscemi, N, Hartling, L, Vandermeer, B, Tjosvold, L, Klassen, TP. Single data extraction generated more errors than double data extraction in systematic reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2006;59:697–703.
Royle, P, Waugh, N. Literature searching for clinical and cost-effectiveness studies used in health technology assessments reports carried out for the National Institute for Clinical Excellence appraisal system. Health Technol Assess. 2003;7:iii, ix–51.
Oxman, AD, Schunemann, HJ, Fretheim, A. Improving the use of research evidence in guideline development: 14. Reporting guidelines. Health Res Policy Syst. 2006;4:26.
Palmer, S, Jansen, A, Leitmeyer, K, Murdoch, H, Forland, F. Evidence-based medicine applied to the control of communicable disease incidents when evidence is scarce and the time is limited. Euro Surveill. 2013;18:pii:20507.
Higgins, JPT, Altman, DG, Sterne, JAC. 8.3.3 Quality scales and Cochrane reviews. InHiggins JPT, Green S, eds. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration, 2011. www.cochrane-handbook.org (accessed June 4, 2015).
Watt, A, Cameron, A, Sturm, L, et al.
Rapid reviews versus full systematic reviews: An inventory of current methods and practice in health technology assessment. Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2008;24:133–139.
Sampson, M, Shojania, KG, Garritty, C, et al.
Systematic reviews can be produced and published faster. J Clin Epidemiol. 2008;61:531–536.
Shojania, KG, Sampson, M, Ansari, MT, et al.
How quickly do systematic reviews go out of date? A survival analysis. Ann Intern Med. 2007;147:224–233.
Bastian, H, Glasziou, P, Chalmers, I. Seventy-five trials and eleven systematic reviews a day: How will we ever keep up?
PLoS Med. 2010;7:e1000326.