Protocol

Rapid Evidence Review Protocol

A practical, timeboxed protocol and interactive template to gather, screen, extract, and synthesize existing evidence within a 2–5 day cycle. Includes search guidance, screening rules, an extraction template, a quick confidence rubric, and recommended next actions to turn evidence into near-term decisions.

Interactive Tool

Rapid Evidence Review Protocol

Purpose: Help teams make better near-term discovery decisions by quickly finding, screening, and synthesizing the best available existing evidence. This protocol is designed for decisions such as piloting an experiment, choosing a vendor or approach, scoping a policy choice, or confirming whether a hypothesis has prior support.

When to use it: When you have limited time but need a transparent, reproducible evidence summary to inform an immediate choice. Not a substitute for a full systematic review—use it to reduce uncertainty, form hypotheses, and decide whether a deeper study is required.

Core principles: narrow scope, transparent inclusion rules, reproducible search, clear extraction of effect/context/limitations, and an explicit confidence assessment with recommended next steps.

Timebox: Typical cycles are 2–5 days depending on urgency. Keep the review tightly scoped (one decision question, 3–5 search terms, 2–3 high-value sources).

A short name that makes this review easy to find (e.g., 'Rapid review: remote monitoring for COPD').
Person responsible for the review and final summary.
State the question the evidence should inform. Use PICO-style prompts if helpful: Population, Intervention, Comparator, Outcome.
What is in/out of scope (dates, populations, languages, study designs). Keep it tight to match the timebox.
List prioritized search terms or short boolean strings, one per line. Start broad then narrow if needed.
Choose 2–3 high-value sources for rapid searching.
Name additional sources if needed.
e.g., 2015–2025 or 'no date limit'
Choose a timebox that matches urgency.
Example: 1) Title/abstract screen by one reviewer; exclude clearly irrelevant. 2) Full-text for borderline items. 3) Dual-check of included list by second reviewer if available. Note reasons for exclusion at full-text stage.
What must a study/report include to be considered? (population, outcome, study design, language)
What will you explicitly exclude?
For each included item, add one line with citation or URL. Later use the extraction fields to capture details per study.
For each included study, capture: (1) Citation/URL, (2) Study design, (3) Population/setting, (4) Outcome(s) and direction of effect, (5) Effect size or estimate (if reported), (6) Sample size, (7) Contextual notes (implementation, cost, feasibility), (8) Limitations / risk of bias, (9) Relevance to our decision.
Condense the key findings and what they mean for the decision. Note consistency, magnitude, and major caveats.
Use a simple rubric: High (consistent, robust), Moderate (some limitations), Low (limited/conflicting), Very low (little usable evidence).
Choose one or more immediate steps based on the synthesis.
Record the exact searches performed, dates, number of hits, screening counts, and who performed each step. This supports reproducibility and future follow-up.
Call out what this rapid method may have missed and what would change the assessment.
Add links to saved extraction sheets, PDFs, or other resources.
You can explore this tool now. Sign in or create an account to save your responses and return to them later.
Sign In to Save Create an Account
Make this tool part of your work

Save a personal copy, bring it to your team, or tailor the questions and workflow to fit what you are hungry to improve.

Member customization and team collaboration are coming soon.
Discuss Ask the Librarian

Discussion

Comments and conversation will live here.