文献类型：期刊文献

英文题名：Quality improvement needed for rapid review reports: a literature quality assessment based on Cochrane RR evidence-based methodology

作者：Yang, Donghua[1,2];Zhou, Yongjia[3];Tang, Xiao[4];Zhang, Tianyi[6];Li, Yiyi[3];Zhang, Jun[3];Tian, Jinhui[1];Yang, Limei[5]

第一作者：Yang, Donghua

通信作者：Tian, JH[1];Yang, LM[2]

机构：[1]Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, Sch Basic Med Sci, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[2]Qinghai Univ, Affiliated Hosp, Xi Ning 810000, Peoples R China;[3]Gansu Univ Chinese Med, Sch Nursing, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[4]Lanzhou Univ, Clin Med Coll 1, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[5]Gansu Prov Peoples Hosp, Outpatient Dept, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[6]Beijing Inst Technol, Sch Comp Sci, Beijing 100000, Peoples R China

第一机构：Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, Sch Basic Med Sci, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China

通信机构：[1]corresponding author), Lanzhou Univ, Evidence Based Med Ctr, Sch Basic Med Sci, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China;[2]corresponding author), Gansu Prov Peoples Hosp, Outpatient Dept, Lanzhou 730000, Peoples R China.

年份：2025

卷号：14

期号：1

外文期刊名：SYSTEMATIC REVIEWS

收录：;Scopus(收录号：2-s2.0-105007883032);WOS:【SCI-EXPANDED(收录号:WOS:001506401000002)】；

基金：We sincerely thank Dr. Gao Ya for her guidance in the design and implementation of this study. We also extend our gratitude to the faculty of Epidemiology and Health Statistics at the School of Public Health, Lanzhou University, for their support, which enabled the successful completion of this research.

语种：英文

外文关键词：Rapid systematic review; Cochrane RR evidence-based methodology; Quality assessment; Reporting compliance; Evidence-based medicine

摘要：Objectives: The aim of this study was to assess the reporting quality of rapid reviews (RRs) against the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methodological Guidance to identify areas for improvement. Methods: A literature quality assessment was conducted through systematic searches in PubMed, the Cochrane Library, and Web of Science until February 28, 2023. An expert guided the search strategy, and the reporting quality of RRs was evaluated. Descriptive statistics were used to summarize reporting quality, and subgroup analyses were performed to examine differences between groups. Categorical variables were compared using the chi-square (chi(2)) test to identify statistically significant differences in reporting adherence across different subgroups. Results: Among the 112 rapid reviews analyzed, fewer than 50% fully reported four key methodological components: topic refinement with stakeholders, eligibility criteria co-definition, risk of bias assessment tools, and protocol/software reporting. Reports published after 2021 demonstrated slightly higher overall quality compared to those published before 2020, with significant improvements in protocol development (Item 2: chi(2) = 10.434, P < 0.0001), PICOS specification (Item 3: chi(2) = 5.378, P = 0.02), and protocol registration (Item 23: chi(2) = 6.638, P = 0.01). Cochrane Rapid Reviews (CRRs) achieved 100% compliance in several key areas, including setting restrictions with justification (Item 4: chi(2) = 52.923, P < 0.001) and study selection (Item 14: chi(2) = 14.897, P < 0.001). The impact of journal prestige was also evident: publications in high-impact factor (IF > 5) journals showed significantly better compliance in stakeholder involvement (Item 1: chi(2) = 8.856, P = 0.003) but comparable adherence to protocol registration (Item 23: <= 20.3%). Conclusions: While RR quality is improving post-2021, critical gaps persist in stakeholder engagement and protocol transparency. Mandatory adoption of Cochrane guidelines-particularly protocol registration (Item23) and dual data extraction (Item17)-should be prioritized in journal submission policies.