手法を比較

	迅速レビュー	Umbrella Review
分野	科学計量学	エビデンス統合
系統	Process / pipeline	Process / pipeline
提唱年	2000s (rapidly adopted after 2005; Cochrane guidance 2020–2021)	2009
提唱者	Developed and formalised by health technology assessment agencies and the Cochrane Collaboration	Grant & Booth (2009), Refined by AMSTAR-2 (Shea et al., 2017)
種類	Evidence synthesis review	Framework
原典	Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., King, V. J., Hamel, C., Kamel, C., Affengruber, L., & Stevens, A. (2021). Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group offers evidence-informed guidance to conduct rapid reviews. Journal of Clinical Epidemiology, 130, 13–22.	Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108.
別名	rapid evidence review, accelerated systematic review, rapid evidence assessment, REA	Overview of Reviews, Meta-Review, Review of Reviews
関連	5	2
概要	A rapid review is a streamlined form of systematic review that deliberately simplifies or omits certain steps — such as dual screening, exhaustive grey-literature search, or full risk-of-bias assessment — in order to deliver timely, policy-relevant evidence synthesis within weeks rather than years. It is increasingly used by health agencies, governments, and organisations facing urgent decision-making needs where a full systematic review is not feasible within the available time and resources.	An umbrella review is a systematic synthesis of multiple systematic reviews addressing overlapping or related research questions, typically on the same topic or intervention. Also called a 'review of reviews' or 'overview of reviews,' umbrella reviews consolidate evidence when two or more high-quality systematic reviews exist on the same clinical question. Grant and Booth (2009) formally categorized this methodology; Shea et al. (2017) developed AMSTAR-2, the critical appraisal tool for assessing the quality of included reviews. Umbrella reviews are essential when numerous systematic reviews produce conflicting conclusions, when rapid synthesis of evidence is needed for policy or clinical guidance, or when evidence has accumulated faster than any single systematic review can capture.