Abstract：
BACKGROUND: Rapid reviews (RRs) offer a less rigorous and methodical approach to the process of reviewing literature in comparison to systematic reviews (SRs), which are currently a gold standard.
METHODS: Three different, expedited strategies of the review process were designed in the different scopes, already reviewed in Cochrane\'s SRs. Then, the results of our literature searches and the study selection process were compared to the ones from SRs. The final step was assessing the impact of losing some studies on the final results of meta-analyses.
RESULTS: In RR1, the initial number of references to be reviewed was reduced by half, and the inclusion list was recreated with 84% efficiency. Three out of 19 studies were missed, all having high risk of bias. Studies missed in RR1 were included in Cochrane\'s meta-analyses for 23 separate outcomes, and their lack impacted significantly the final results, or the possibility to run meta-analyses, in four cases. In RR2, 89% of trials included in the SR were captured (24/27); missing the three studies did not impact the final results of the meta-analyses. In RR3, the list of included studies overlapped completely with Cochrane\'s, despite a significantly lower workload.
CONCLUSIONS: A prompt and cost-effective methodology may lead to the identification of pertinent evidence in support of healthcare policy; however, it is essential to conscientiously account for potential biases in the analysis.
METHODS: Three different, expedited strategies of the review process were designed in the different scopes, already reviewed in Cochrane\'s SRs. Then, the results of our literature searches and the study selection process were compared to the ones from SRs. The final step was assessing the impact of losing some studies on the final results of meta-analyses.
RESULTS: In RR1, the initial number of references to be reviewed was reduced by half, and the inclusion list was recreated with 84% efficiency. Three out of 19 studies were missed, all having high risk of bias. Studies missed in RR1 were included in Cochrane\'s meta-analyses for 23 separate outcomes, and their lack impacted significantly the final results, or the possibility to run meta-analyses, in four cases. In RR2, 89% of trials included in the SR were captured (24/27); missing the three studies did not impact the final results of the meta-analyses. In RR3, the list of included studies overlapped completely with Cochrane\'s, despite a significantly lower workload.
CONCLUSIONS: A prompt and cost-effective methodology may lead to the identification of pertinent evidence in support of healthcare policy; however, it is essential to conscientiously account for potential biases in the analysis.
摘要：
背景：与系统综述（SRs）相比，快速综述（RRs）为文献综述提供了一种不太严格和有条理的方法，这是目前的黄金标准。
方法：三种不同的方法，审查过程的快速策略是在不同的范围内设计的，已经在Cochrane的SRs中进行了审查。然后，将我们的文献检索结果和研究选择过程与来自SR的结果进行了比较.最后一步是评估一些研究失败对荟萃分析最终结果的影响。
结果：在RR1中，要审查的参考文献的初始数量减少了一半，并以84%的效率重新创建了包含列表。19项研究中有3项被错过了，都有很高的偏见风险。在RR1中遗漏的研究包括在Cochrane的meta分析中，对23个不同的结局，他们的缺乏对最终结果产生了重大影响，或者进行荟萃分析的可能性，在四个案例中。在RR2中，包含在SR中的89％的试验被捕获（24/27）；缺少三项研究并不影响荟萃分析的最终结果。在RR3中，纳入研究的列表与Cochrane完全重叠，尽管工作量大大降低。
结论：快速且具有成本效益的方法可能会导致识别支持医疗保健政策的相关证据；但是，必须认真考虑分析中的潜在偏见。
方法：三种不同的方法，审查过程的快速策略是在不同的范围内设计的，已经在Cochrane的SRs中进行了审查。然后，将我们的文献检索结果和研究选择过程与来自SR的结果进行了比较.最后一步是评估一些研究失败对荟萃分析最终结果的影响。
结果：在RR1中，要审查的参考文献的初始数量减少了一半，并以84%的效率重新创建了包含列表。19项研究中有3项被错过了，都有很高的偏见风险。在RR1中遗漏的研究包括在Cochrane的meta分析中，对23个不同的结局，他们的缺乏对最终结果产生了重大影响，或者进行荟萃分析的可能性，在四个案例中。在RR2中，包含在SR中的89％的试验被捕获（24/27）；缺少三项研究并不影响荟萃分析的最终结果。在RR3中，纳入研究的列表与Cochrane完全重叠，尽管工作量大大降低。
结论：快速且具有成本效益的方法可能会导致识别支持医疗保健政策的相关证据；但是，必须认真考虑分析中的潜在偏见。
