Rapid Reviews in Clinical Evidence Synthesis: Speed vs. Precision — A Practitioner's Honest Assessment

If you work in medical devices, you have heard this before: "We need the evidence faster."

Regulatory timelines are tightening, Notified Bodies are asking sharper questions, and the window between a clinical question and a defensible answer keeps shrinking. Rapid reviews promise to close that gap.

But promises and deliverables are different things.

This post gives you a realistic, evidence-based breakdown of what rapid reviews can and cannot do — measured against the Cochrane standard systematic review, which remains the benchmark for evidence synthesis credibility.

What Is a Rapid Review?

A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that streamlines or omits specific methodological steps of a conventional systematic review to produce evidence for decision-makers within a shorter timeframe (Garritty et al., 2021).

Definition (Cochrane RRMG): A rapid review "accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting specific methods to produce evidence for stakeholders in a resource-efficient manner." — Garritty et al., 2024

Typical timelines range from 2 to 12 weeks, compared to the 12 to 24 months a full Cochrane-style systematic review regularly demands (Borah et al., 2017; Tricco et al., 2015).

What gets streamlined varies widely. Common shortcuts include:

Limiting database searches (e.g., PubMed only instead of PubMed + Embase + CENTRAL + grey literature)
Restricting inclusion criteria by date or language
Reducing dual screening to single-reviewer processes with verification
Presenting results as narrative synthesis rather than formal meta-analysis

(Tricco et al., 2015)

The Cochrane Standard: What You Are Comparing Against

Before evaluating rapid reviews, you need to understand what a Cochrane-grade systematic review demands.

The Cochrane Handbook prescribes a process built on comprehensiveness, dual-reviewer independence, predefined protocols (PROSPERO), systematic risk-of-bias assessment, and transparent reporting via PRISMA (Higgins et al., 2023).

This is not academic formality. Each step exists to minimize selection bias, reporting bias, and reviewer error. The result is evidence that regulators, HTA bodies, and Notified Bodies treat as the gold standard.

The question is not whether Cochrane reviews are better — they are. The question is whether the margin of difference justifies the cost and timeline in every scenario.

Head-to-Head Comparison: The Evidence

The table below summarizes the key methodological differences. A detailed discussion of each dimension follows.

Dimension	Cochrane Systematic Review	Rapid Review	Risk Level of Shortcut
Search	≥3 databases + grey literature + trial registries	1–2 databases, grey literature often omitted	⚠️ Moderate
Screening	Dual independent reviewers	Single reviewer + verification	⚠️ Moderate
Risk-of-Bias	Formal tool (RoB 2, ROBINS-I), dual assessment	Single reviewer or omitted entirely	🔴 High
Synthesis	Meta-analysis + GRADE	Narrative synthesis (78% of cases)	⚠️ Context-dependent
Timeline	12–24 months	2–12 weeks	✅ Major advantage
Conclusion concordance	Benchmark	Concordant in majority; ~10% risk of meaningful divergence	⚠️ Non-trivial

1. Search Comprehensiveness

Cochrane SR: Multiple databases (MEDLINE, Embase, CENTRAL minimum), grey literature, trial registries, reference list checking, contact with authors.

Rapid Review: Typically 1–2 databases. Grey literature often omitted.

Marshall et al. (2019) simulated rapid review methods across 2,512 Cochrane meta-analyses. Searching PubMed only resulted in a roughly 10% risk of the pooled odds ratio changing by more than 20%.

That sounds manageable — until you consider that for regulatory decisions, even moderate shifts in effect estimates can change the risk-benefit calculus of a device.

Verdict: For exploratory or scoping purposes, a narrower search is defensible. For evidence packages destined for a CER or Notified Body submission, this is a real vulnerability.

2. Study Selection and Screening

Cochrane SR: Dual independent screening at title/abstract and full-text stages.

Rapid Review: Commonly single-reviewer screening with a second reviewer checking excluded studies or a sample of inclusions (Nussbaumer-Streit et al., 2023).

The Cochrane RRMG acknowledges this trade-off explicitly and recommends that when single-reviewer screening is used, a second reviewer should verify at minimum all excluded studies at the full-text stage (Garritty et al., 2024).

Verdict: Acceptable shortcut if the verification step is genuinely implemented. In practice, many rapid reviews skip even this safeguard — and that is where bias creeps in.

3. Risk-of-Bias Assessment

Cochrane SR: Formal tool-based assessment applied to every included study by two independent reviewers.

Rapid Review: Often single reviewer. Tricco et al. (2015) found that 7% of rapid reviews did not conduct any risk-of-bias assessment at all.

⚠️ This is the single most dangerous shortcut. Without risk-of-bias assessment, you cannot judge the internal validity of your included studies. Any synthesis built on unappraised evidence is fundamentally untrustworthy.

Verdict: Non-negotiable. Even in a rapid review, retain risk-of-bias assessment. Abbreviate the number of domains if you must — but do not skip it.

4. Data Synthesis

Cochrane SR: Quantitative meta-analysis with heterogeneity assessment (I², prediction intervals), sensitivity analyses, subgroup analyses, and GRADE certainty-of-evidence assessment.

Rapid Review: Predominantly narrative synthesis. 78% of rapid reviews used narrative summaries only (Tricco et al., 2015). The updated Cochrane guidance recommends GRADE when possible but acknowledges this is resource-intensive (Gartlehner et al., 2024).

Narrative synthesis is not inherently inferior — it depends on the question. For heterogeneous evidence landscapes (common in medical devices), narrative synthesis with structured summary tables can be more informative than a forced meta-analysis with high I².

But the absence of quantitative pooling means you lose the precision of a summary effect estimate — and that matters when demonstrating clinical benefit quantitatively.

Verdict: Context-dependent. For 3–5 heterogeneous single-arm studies (typical in devices), narrative synthesis may be the more honest approach. But be transparent about what you are and are not claiming.

5. Concordance of Conclusions

Reynen et al. (2018) compared 16 pairs of rapid reviews and systematic reviews on the same topics. In the majority of cases, conclusions were concordant. However, two pairs showed important differences — enough to change a clinical or policy recommendation.

Marshall et al. (2019) provide the most rigorous data: across 2,512 Cochrane reviews, PubMed-only search carried the lowest risk (~10% chance of >20% OR change), while excluding small trials or using only the largest trial introduced substantially higher error rates.

Verdict: Rapid reviews get the broad direction right most of the time. But "most of the time" is not "reliably." The error rate is non-trivial and not predictable in advance.

✅ Where Rapid Reviews Have Genuine Value

Dismissing rapid reviews because they are "not as good as" Cochrane reviews misses the point. The real comparison is:

Rapid review vs. no evidence at all — or rapid review vs. delayed evidence that arrives after the decision has already been made.

Rapid reviews are defensible and valuable in these scenarios:

Early-Stage Evidence Landscaping

Before committing to a full systematic review, a rapid review can map what evidence exists, identify gaps, and inform the design of your Clinical Evaluation Plan (CEP). Especially relevant for novel devices entering the EU market under MDR.

PMCF Planning

When designing a Post-Market Clinical Follow-up study, you need a current evidence picture. A rapid review can inform your PMCF plan rationale and identify clinical outcomes requiring ongoing surveillance.

Urgent Safety Signals

If a vigilance report or field safety corrective action raises a clinical question, you cannot wait 18 months. A rapid review — conducted transparently — is far better than expert opinion alone.

Internal Decision-Making

Go/no-go decisions on development programs, investment in clinical studies, or market entry strategy often need evidence synthesis on a timeline only rapid reviews can meet.

Iterative Evidence Updates

If you already have a full systematic review and need to check for new evidence since the last search, a rapid update is efficient and appropriate.

🔴 Where Rapid Reviews Will Hurt You

Primary CER Evidence Base

If the rapid review is the sole evidence synthesis supporting your Clinical Evaluation Report, you are exposed. Notified Bodies under MDR increasingly expect systematic review methodology aligned with MEDDEV 2.7/1 Rev. 4. A rapid review that omits grey literature, uses single-reviewer screening, and lacks GRADE assessment will draw audit findings.

HTA Submissions

Health Technology Assessment bodies (NICE, G-BA, HAS) expect Cochrane-grade methodology. A rapid review here is a non-starter.

Regulatory Submissions with Quantitative Benefit Claims

If your submission depends on a specific effect size or quantitative demonstration of clinical benefit, the imprecision inherent in rapid review methods undermines your evidentiary foundation.

A Practical Decision Framework

Before commissioning a rapid review, ask three questions:

① What is the consequence of an incorrect conclusion?

If the answer feeds into a regulatory submission or a clinical decision with direct patient impact → tolerance for error is low → full systematic review.

If it informs internal strategy or scoping → rapid review is proportionate.

② What is the cost of delayed evidence?

If waiting 12–18 months means missing a regulatory window, losing market access, or making safety decisions blind → cost of delay outweighs precision loss.

③ Can you be transparent about the limitations?

A rapid review that honestly reports its shortcuts retains credibility. A rapid review that disguises itself as a systematic review does not.

The Cochrane RRMG is unequivocal: transparency about where methods were simplified is not optional (Garritty et al., 2024; Tricco et al., 2018).

The Bottom Line

Rapid reviews are a legitimate tool in the evidence synthesis arsenal. They are not a shortcut around rigor — they are a calibrated trade-off within it.

The Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group, the JBI, and the WHO have all endorsed rapid reviews as part of the evidence ecosystem (Garritty et al., 2024; Devane et al., 2024; Tricco et al., 2017).

But legitimacy requires discipline.

A well-conducted rapid review with transparent reporting is a defensible evidence product. A poorly conducted rapid review with undisclosed shortcuts is worse than no review at all — because it creates a false sense of certainty.

For medical device teams operating under EU-MDR: Use rapid reviews strategically for scoping, planning, and urgent questions — and invest in full systematic reviews for your definitive regulatory evidence packages. The two are complementary, not interchangeable.

References

Borah R, Brown AW, Capers PL, Kaiser KA. Analysis of the time and workers needed to conduct systematic reviews of medical interventions using data from the PROSPERO registry. BMJ Open. 2017;7(4):e012545. doi:10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012545
Devane D, Hamel C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Griebler U, Affengruber L, Saif-Ur-Rahman KM, Garritty C. Key concepts in rapid reviews: an overview. J Clin Epidemiol. 2024;175:111518. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2024.111518
Garritty C, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, King VJ, Hamel C, Kamel C, Affengruber L, Stevens A. Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2021;130:13–22. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.007
Garritty C, Hamel C, Trivella M, Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Devane D, Kamel C, Griebler U, King VJ; Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ. 2024;384:e076335. doi:10.1136/bmj-2023-076335
Gartlehner G, Nussbaumer-Streit B, Devane D, et al. Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on assessing the certainty of evidence. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2024;29:50–54. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112111
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. Version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook
Marshall IJ, Marshall R, Wallace BC, Brassey J, Thomas J. Rapid reviews may produce different results to systematic reviews: a meta-epidemiological study. J Clin Epidemiol. 2019;109:30–41. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2018.12.015
Nussbaumer-Streit B, Sommer I, Hamel C, et al. Rapid reviews methods series: guidance on team considerations, study selection, data extraction and risk of bias assessment. BMJ Evid Based Med. 2023;28:418–423. doi:10.1136/bmjebm-2022-112185
Reynen E, Robson R, Ivory J, Hwee J, Straus SE, Pham B, Tricco AC. A retrospective comparison of systematic reviews with same-topic rapid reviews. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:23–34. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.12.001
Tricco AC, Antony J, Zarin W, Strifler L, Ghassemi M, Ivory J, Perrier L, Hutton B, Moher D, Straus SE. A scoping review of rapid review methods. BMC Med. 2015;13:224. doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0465-6
Tricco AC, Langlois EV, Straus SE (editors). Rapid Reviews to Strengthen Health Policy and Systems: A Practical Guide. Geneva: World Health Organization; 2017.
Tricco AC, Zarin W, Ghassemi M, et al. Same family, different species: methodological conduct and quality varies according to purpose for five types of knowledge synthesis. J Clin Epidemiol. 2018;96:133–142. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2017.10.014

Dr. Marc Harms
MH-Analytics