Rapid Reviews: Balancing Speed with Rigor in Decision-Making

In healthcare, timing is often the difference between success and delay. Whether responding to an HTA query, preparing for a payer negotiation, or shaping early pipeline decisions, stakeholders frequently need evidence faster than a traditional systematic review can provide.

Enter the rapid review.

Rapid reviews are streamlined evidence syntheses designed to deliver actionable insights within weeks rather than months. They don’t aim to replace systematic reviews — instead, they provide fit-for-purpose evidence in time-sensitive contexts.

But speed comes with trade-offs. The central challenge is balancing efficiency with rigor, ensuring that decision-makers get reliable evidence without compromising scientific integrity.

In this blog, we’ll explore:

• What rapid reviews are (and what they’re not)

• Why they’re increasingly important in regulatory and market access contexts

• Common methods and trade-offs

• A detailed case study of a rapid review in action

• Best practices for balancing speed with transparency

🔹 What Is a Rapid Review?

A rapid review is a form of evidence synthesis that uses modified systematic review methods to deliver findings quickly. Key features often include:

• Narrower scope (focusing on fewer outcomes, populations, or comparators)

• Streamlined searches (fewer databases, targeted grey literature)

• Simplified screening (single reviewer with verification instead of dual reviewers)

• Accelerated appraisal (lighter tools for quality assessment)

• Transparent reporting (clear documentation of shortcuts and their implications)

The result is a review that may not capture every piece of evidence, but still provides robust, defensible insights — in timeframes aligned with business and regulatory needs.

🔹 Why Rapid Reviews Matter

Rapid reviews are gaining traction in multiple contexts:

1. Early HTA Engagement

When companies seek early scientific advice or engage with HTA agencies, timelines are short. Rapid reviews help prepare credible evidence packages to shape discussions and identify data gaps.

2. Policy and Guideline Decisions

Public health agencies increasingly rely on rapid reviews to inform urgent policy decisions — a practice accelerated during the COVID-19 pandemic.

3. Pipeline Prioritization

In portfolio management, rapid reviews provide early insights into competitive landscapes, treatment pathways, and comparator choices.

4. Market Access Support

For payer engagements or advisory boards, rapid reviews can synthesize real-world outcomes, burden of illness, or PRO data quickly and credibly.

🔹 Trade-Offs: Speed vs. Rigor

A rapid review is not a shortcut — it’s a methodological compromise. The key is making those compromises transparent.

Typical trade-offs include:

• Scope: Narrower questions improve efficiency but may overlook broader evidence.

• Databases: Searching fewer sources saves time but risks missing niche studies.

• Screening: Single-reviewer screening speeds up selection but introduces potential bias.

• Appraisal: Using simplified quality assessments reduces workload but may gloss over nuances.

HTA bodies and payers generally accept these trade-offs if they are clearly documented. What undermines trust is pretending a rapid review is a full systematic review.

🔹 Case Study: Rapid Review in Oncology

The Challenge

A global pharma company was preparing for an early HTA advice meeting on a late-stage oncology asset. The deadline was six weeks — too short for a full systematic review, yet too high-stakes to present anecdotal evidence.

The internal team needed a review that was credible enough to influence HTA advice, but fast enough to meet timelines.

Our Approach: Rapid Review Framework

We designed a rapid review balancing speed with defensibility:

1️⃣ Focused Scope

• Defined the PICO narrowly: survival outcomes and comparator regimens only.

• Excluded exploratory endpoints and secondary comparators.

2️⃣ Streamlined Searches

• Targeted three major databases (Medline, Embase, CENTRAL).

• Supplemented with grey sources: ClinicalTrials.gov, ASCO abstracts, ESMO proceedings.

3️⃣ Simplified Screening

• Used single-reviewer screening with 10% dual verification.

• Documented inclusion/exclusion decisions transparently.

4️⃣ Rapid Appraisal

• Applied a simplified GRADE approach to classify study quality.

• Focused on key trial design features (randomization, blinding, follow-up).

5️⃣ Transparent Reporting

• Produced a PRISMA-style flow diagram.

• Added a clear “Rapid Review Limitations” section explaining trade-offs.

The Results

✔️ The evidence package was delivered in four weeks, meeting the HTA meeting deadline. 

✔️ The HTA advisors accepted the rapid review as fit-for-purpose and raised no objections to methodology. 

✔️ The findings shaped economic model assumptions and informed comparator choices for the pivotal trial design. 

✔️ Internally, the team adopted the framework as a standard tool for early HTA engagement.

The Insight

The case underscored a key lesson: rapid reviews aren’t about cutting corners — they’re about strategic prioritization and transparency.

By clearly stating scope, methods, and limitations, the review gained credibility with regulators and stakeholders, despite being accelerated.

🔹 Best Practices for Rapid Reviews

For organizations looking to integrate rapid reviews into their evidence strategies, consider these best practices:

✅ Start with a Clear Scope – Narrow the question to the essentials (population, outcomes, comparators). 

✅ Use Focused Sources – Prioritize databases and grey literature most likely to yield relevant studies. 

✅ Be Transparent – Document every methodological shortcut and its rationale. 

✅ Engage Stakeholders Early – Align on what “fit-for-purpose” means for the review. 

✅ Link to Next Steps – Use findings to guide systematic reviews, trial designs, or HTA strategies.

🔚 Final Thoughts

In a fast-moving healthcare landscape, waiting six months for a systematic review isn’t always an option. Rapid reviews fill a critical gap — providing timely, credible evidence to support early decision-making.

The key is not to view them as “less rigorous,” but as fit-for-purpose tools. When executed transparently, rapid reviews demonstrate both scientific discipline and strategic agility.

In evidence synthesis, speed matters. But rigor still wins trust. A well-balanced rapid review delivers both.

📌 Looking to integrate rapid reviews into your evidence strategy? Our HEOR and medical writing experts design fit-for-purpose rapid reviews that balance speed with rigor — helping you meet tight deadlines without compromising credibility.

👉 [info@i-Qode.com] to learn more or explore our case study on Rapid Review for Oncology HTA Engagement.