Project title: Do methodological trade-offs used to conduct rapid reviews of the literature lead to biased results and conclusions compared to systematic reviews? 

Project background: Rapid reviews are increasingly being used by health policy and decision-makers to develop health and policy programs. In order to reduce the timeframe to completion, rapid reviews use shortcuts from traditional systematic review methods. Few studies are available to demonstrate the impact these shortcuts have on rapid review steps and overall review conclusions. Those that exist have inconsistent findings and the impact of shortcuts may vary based on the topic of the review. No studies to date investigate rapid reviews conducted in the field of rehabilitation.

Project objectives:

 The objective of this project is to investigate the impact of rapid review shortcuts on the outcomes of rapid review steps and conclusions of rapid reviews compared to systematic reviews in musculoskeletal rehabilitation.