Abstract
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 (χ(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: χ(2) = 10.434, P < 0.0001), PICOS specification (Item 3: χ(2) = 5.378, P = 0.02), and protocol registration (Item 23: χ(2) = 6.638, P = 0.01). Cochrane Rapid Reviews (CRRs) achieved 100% compliance in several key areas, including setting restrictions with justification (Item 4: χ(2) = 52.923, P < 0.001) and study selection (Item 14: χ(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: χ(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.