השוואת שיטות

	סקירה שיטתית חיה	מתודולוגיית סקירה מהירה
תחום	סינתזת ראיות	סינתזת ראיות
משפחה	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
שנת המקור	2017	2012
הוגה השיטה	Elliott et al. (2017), Advanced by Cochrane Collaboration	Khangura et al. (2012), Codified by Cochrane Rapid Reviews (2020)
סוג	Framework	Framework
מקור מכונן	Elliott, J. H., Synnot, A., Turner, T., Simmonds, M., Akl, E. A., McDonald, S., ... Higgins, P. T. (2017). Living systematic reviews: An emerging opportunity to narrow the evidence-practice gap. PLOS Medicine, 14(2), e1002254.	Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., et al. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews interim guidance on methodological considerations for expedited reviews of interventions. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–21.
כינויים	LSR, Continually Updated Review, Dynamic Evidence Synthesis	Rapid Evidence Synthesis, Expedited Review, Fast-Track Systematic Review
קשורות	1	1
תקציר	A living systematic review (LSR) is a dynamic, continuously updated evidence synthesis that monitors emerging literature and incorporates new studies as they become available, rather than being a static document published once. Formalized by Elliott et al. (2017) and adopted by the Cochrane Collaboration, living systematic reviews maintain currency in rapidly evolving fields by using prospective searches and regular review cycles (monthly, quarterly, or trigger-based). Rather than waiting 12-18 months for a complete systematic review only to find it outdated by new trials, living reviews enable real-time evidence synthesis—particularly valuable during pandemics, in rapidly advancing fields (oncology, immunology), and for volatile policy questions where new evidence frequently shifts recommendations.	A rapid review is a systematic synthesis method that accelerates the evidence review process by streamlining or omitting certain systematic review steps while maintaining transparent, reproducible methodology. Pioneered by Khangura et al. (2012) and codified by the Cochrane Collaboration (2020), rapid reviews answer urgent policy or clinical questions in weeks to months rather than 12-18 months required by full systematic reviews. Methodological shortcuts—such as single screening of borderline studies, abbreviated search strategies, or limiting study designs—trades some rigor for speed. Rapid reviews are increasingly vital in responding to public health emergencies (pandemics, environmental crises) and evolving clinical practice questions where waiting for a full systematic review is not feasible.