6533b7ddfe1ef96bd12753c3

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Assessing the format and content of journal published and non-journal published rapid review reports: A comparative study

subject

description

Background As production of rapid reviews (RRs) increases in healthcare, knowing how to efficiently convey RR evidence to various end-users is important given they are often intended to directly inform decision-making. Little is known about how often RRs are produced in the published or unpublished domains, and what and how information is structured. Objectives To compare and contrast report format and content features of journal-published (JP) and non-journal published (NJP) RRs. Methods JP RRs were identified from key databases, and NJP RRs were identified from a grey literature search of 148 RR producing organizations and were sampled proportionate to cluster size by organization and product type to match the JP RR group. We extracted and formally compared ‘how’ (i.e., visual arrangement) and ‘what’ information was presented. Results We identified 103 RRs (52 JP and 51 NJP) from 2016. A higher percentage of certain features were observed in JP RRs compared to NJP RRs (e.g., reporting authors ; use of a traditional journal article structure ; section headers including abstract, methods, discussion, conclusions, acknowledgments, conflict of interests, and author contributions ; and use of figures (e.g., Study Flow Diagram) in the main document). For NJP RRs, a higher percentage of features were observed (e.g., use non-traditional report structures ; bannering of executive summary sections and appendices ; use of typographic cues ; and including outcome tables). NJP RRs were more than double in length versus JP RRs. Including key messages was uncommon in both groups. Conclusions This comparative study highlights differences between JP and NJP RRs. Both groups may benefit from better use of plain language, and more clear and concise design. Alternative innovative formats and end-user preferences for content and layout should be studied further with thought given to other considerations to ensure better packaging of RR results to facilitate uptake into policy and practice. Copyright: © 2020 Garritty et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.