Rapid review services for evidence you need in weeks

A rapid review starts from a deadline rather than an ambition to find every study ever published. A commissioning body needs an answer before a guideline meeting, a policy team needs the evidence before a funding cycle closes, or a clinical unit needs to act on a new intervention this quarter. The question is not whether to cut corners but which streamlining choices lose the least amount of certainty for the time they save, and that judgement is the substance of the work.

Because of that, scoping is where a rapid review is won or lost. We tighten the review question so it is answerable in the window you have, agree the streamlined steps in a short protocol, and are honest at the outset if the topic is too broad to synthesise responsibly in the time available. A well-framed narrow question answered transparently is worth far more than a wide one answered hastily.

The streamlining is specific and bounded. Each shortcut below is one the Cochrane and WHO guidance endorses, applied with a stated reason and a safeguard so the saving in time does not quietly become a hidden risk of error.

1. 1

   Single-reviewer screening with a check

   One reviewer screens titles and abstracts while a second reviewer independently checks the excluded records, or a sample of them, so nothing eligible is dropped silently. Full-text screening is verified the same way.

2. 2

   Focused, still-documented searching

   We search a small set of core databases rather than every possible source, and we record the strategy in full. Date or language limits are applied only with a reason a reader can see and judge.

3. 3

   Targeted grey literature

   Instead of an exhaustive grey literature sweep, we target the specific sources most likely to hold relevant evidence for your question, such as trial registers, agency reports, or guideline databases.

4. 4

   Verified single extraction and focused appraisal

   One reviewer extracts data and a second verifies it against the source, and risk-of-bias assessment concentrates on the outcomes that carry the review's conclusions rather than every reported measure.

A rapid review is credible precisely because it names its own limits. Every shortcut carries a small, known cost, and the professional obligation is to report it rather than to imply the review is as exhaustive as a full one. Single-reviewer screening slightly raises the chance of missing an eligible study; a limited search may leave a relevant source uncovered; date and language restrictions can introduce selection effects. None of these ruin a review, but all of them belong in the limitations section.

We write those limitations plainly, explain how each streamlining choice could bear on the findings, and, where the evidence is thin or inconsistent, we say so rather than overstate a conclusion. This is the same honesty we bring to a GRADE assessment of certainty, and it is what lets a rapid review stand up in peer review and inform a real decision.

You get a complete, reportable synthesis rather than an informal summary: the finalised question and streamlined protocol, the full search record, a PRISMA flow diagram of selection, the extracted findings, a focused risk-of-bias appraisal, and a narrative or, where the studies support it, a pooled synthesis. The method and limitations are written to the PRISMA 2020 standard so the work is ready for a journal, a guideline panel, or an internal decision.

• A tightened review question and a short, pre-specified streamlined protocol
• A documented, reproducible search across your core databases and targeted grey literature
• Structured screening with a second-reviewer check on excluded records
• Verified data extraction and a focused risk-of-bias assessment on key outcomes
• A narrative synthesis, or a meta-analysis where the studies are similar enough to pool
• Method and limitations sections written for peer review, following PRISMA 2020

A rapid review is not a cheaper substitute for a full systematic review; it is a different tool for a different situation. When your question demands the most exhaustive, defensible answer available and you have the months to do it, a full systematic review is the right choice. When a decision cannot wait, a rapid review trades a defined, transparent margin of completeness for speed. The table below shows where they part.

The brief varies by who is asking and what the answer has to survive, and we shape the streamlining and the write-up to match. What every commissioner shares is a real deadline and a need for the method to be defensible after the fact.

We quote a fixed fee per project rather than by the hour, so the cost is known before any work begins. Behind that number sits the real analytical load: the breadth of the question, the expected search yield, which shortcuts are appropriate, whether you need a narrative or a pooled synthesis, and how much of the reporting you want us to draft. Because the timeline is the whole point, we confirm the deadline first and, if a question cannot be answered well in that window, we say so and propose a question that can. Send us the topic and the date you need the answer, and we will return a plan, a timeline, and a fixed quote with no obligation to proceed.