Opinion on "rapid" reviews vs systematic reviews

 A colleague shared this with me, and I thought the broader WHSLA community would appreciate it, too. 

The Dark Side of Rapid Reviews: a Retreat from Systematic Approaches and the Need for Clear Expectations and Reporting 

The authors’ opinion piece from Annals of Internal Medicine lobbies to change the language about “rapid reviews” which omit key methods for systematic science.  They point out these reviews should be known as restricted reviews or partial systematic reviews.  They ask for funding agencies and journals to limit these partial reviews unless well  justified and disclose methods ( or lack of  them) transparently. They fear if more “rapid reviews” proliferate, we will return to poor and sloppy reporting and more confusion about the science reported to the public.   This is a good article to refer to when patrons indicate they are undertaking rapid reviews.   As librarians, we should teach the value of methodical (and yes time consuming)  approach which is transparent.   Ultimately it will improve the chances of publication and is a better contribution to evidence based knowledge.

The Dark Side of Rapid Reviews: A Retreat From Systematic Approaches and the Need for Clear Expectations and Reporting | Annals of Internal Medicine (acpjournals.org)