Table 2.
Suggested minimum reporting items for rapid reviews of health policy and systems research
| Category | Items to consider |
|---|---|
| Protocol |
• Was a protocol used? • If so, was the protocol made public, published in a journal, and/or registered in advance? (if so, provide reference and/or registration number, or link to protocol) |
| Overall scope |
• Was the scope limited in any way? • Were there a limited number of research or policy questions? • Were the research questions of limited type (e.g., effectiveness only, specific populations)? • Was the number of included studies limited? |
| Comprehensivenessa |
• Was the search strategy limited in any way (e.g., number of databases, gray literature, date, setting, language)? • Were there limits on the types of study included (e.g., existing systematic reviews, randomized controlled trials)? • Was textual analysis limited (e.g., no full-text review and/or limits on the number of items extracted)? |
| Rigor and quality controla |
• Was the process of dual study selection or dual data extraction modified or omitted? • Was the internal or external review of the final research report limited or omitted? |
| Synthesisa |
• Was the assessment of risk of bias or quality of evidence limited or omitted? • Was qualitative or quantitative analysis limited or omitted? |
| Otherb |
• When making statements about the findings of the rapid review, were the conclusions simplified or omitted? • Is it appropriate to provide a disclaimerc and/or limitations section in context with your findings? |
aFocus on methodological tailoring
bIt may help to consider the differences between the present rapid review and the content of a more comprehensive systematic review. This material is likely best provided in the discussion section of the rapid review report, which should include a description of any review limitations
cAuthors of rapid reviews should consider a disclaimer section in the executive summary, as part of the discussion, or as a note on the cover page, to highlight these limitations and any perceived impact to the review findings. This helps to frame the limitations and to emphasize caution around interpretation [18]