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.

Large primary hepatocellular carcinoma (HCC) has a high mortality rate and a variety of treatments. Surgery and transcatheter arterial chemoembolization (TACE) are important treatments. Which could be better remain debatable. The objective of the study is to compare the long-term overall survival of surgical resection (SR) and the use of TACE in patients with large hepatocellular carcinoma.
We assessed clinical trials through PubMed, Medline, Embase, and the Cochrane Library up to March 2022. Two researchers independently screened articles, extracted data, and assessed the study quality according to the PRISMA (Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses)guidelines. The primary outcome was overall survival (OS). The secondary outcomes were OS after propensity scores matching (PSM) and progression-free survival (PFS).
A total of 14 studies, including 3609 patients, were enrolled in the meta-analysis. The meta-analysis indicated a significant improvement in the 1-year OS, 3-year OS, and 5-year OS favoring SR over TACE (OR = 2.19, 95% CI 1,60-3.00; OR = 3.47, 95% CI 2.47-4.88; OR = 2.72, 95% CI 2.03-3.64, p < 0.001, random model). The results were consistent across subgroups of tumor size and tumor numbers (p > 0.05). The pooled outcome indicated that 1-year OS, 3-year OS, and 5-year OS after PSM were higher in the SR group than in the TACE group (p < 0.001).
This meta-analysis indicates that among patients with large primary hepatocellular carcinoma, the overall survival rate of patients undergoing surgical resection was higher than that of patients undergoing TACE.