ScholarGate
助手

方法对比

并排查看您选择的方法;存在差异的行会高亮显示。

动态系统综述×快速审查方法论×
领域证据综合证据综合
方法族Process / pipelineProcess / pipeline
起源年份20172012
提出者Elliott et al. (2017), Advanced by Cochrane CollaborationKhangura et al. (2012), Codified by Cochrane Rapid Reviews (2020)
类型FrameworkFramework
开创性文献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. link ↗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. link ↗
别名LSR, Continually Updated Review, Dynamic Evidence SynthesisRapid Evidence Synthesis, Expedited Review, Fast-Track Systematic Review
相关11
摘要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 Rather than waiting 12-18 months for a complete systematic review only to find it outdated by new trials, living reviews enable real-time evidence synthesis—particularly valuable during pandemics, in rapidly advancing fields (oncology, immunology),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.
ScholarGate数据集
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED
  1. v1
  2. 3 来源
  3. PUBLISHED

前往搜索 下载幻灯片

ScholarGate方法对比: Living Systematic Review · Rapid Review Methodology. 于 2026-06-19 检索自 https://scholargate.app/zh/compare