Rapid evidence reviews: Products and methods
This page outlines our evidence review products, as well as the methods used in our work. It aims to provide a transparent description of how studies are identified and synthesised to produce a balanced assessment of the literature.
On this page:
Rapid evidence review products
Responsive evidence review methods provide rapid, responsive summaries of the latest evidence. They help NSW Health to make informed decisions about policies, services and innovations when it matters most.
We produce 2 main types of evidence reviews.
Evidence checks
Evidence checks are rapid narrative reviews which often have sub-questions to inform the delivery of care in NSW. They include a summary or narrative synthesis, followed by a more detailed outline of the identified studies.
Evidence briefs
Evidence briefs are a shorter review (typically 2–3 pages). They summarise findings from a horizon scan on what is new or innovative in a particular area, and how other jurisdictions are responding, supported by a brief narrative synthesis.
Rapid evidence review methods
When producing evidence synthesis, we aim to balance responsiveness with maintaining quality and transparency.
Our evidence reviews provide rapid, responsive evidence summaries for a busy health system, which requires diverse sources of evidence and insights to inform changes in care delivery or to support healthcare innovations.
Rapid evidence reviews are not intended to be exhaustive reviews or systematic reviews. They are narrative in style and do not provide recommendations.
Our evidence reviews are publicly available, wherever possible; however, this does require readers to have a reasonable level of research literacy to understand the different study designs and applicability of findings for the NSW Health system and its consumers.
Our staff are methodologists, not topic experts, who work closely with requesting teams and clinical expert advisory groups. This separation aims to add an additional level of rigour.
Exact methods differ for each review; however, the following is an overview of the methods used for evidence searching, screening, synthesis and peer review.
For further discussion on conducting rapid reviews in healthcare settings, see our paper in BMJ.
Methods for searching for and screening evidence
- PICO-driven evidence questions with transparent inclusion criteria.
- Search terms for PubMed are developed by the CIU team and checked by requesting team and/or steering committee.
- Peer-review literature is restricted to the highest levels of evidence available for a particular topic or sub-question. For example, systematic reviews may be cited, then all interventional studies published after the inclusion dates of the last systematic review will also be included.
- Additional literature missed in PubMed and meeting the criteria is also identified via Google Scholar, hand-searching key articles and steering committee feedback.
- Single reviewer screening and data extraction, with peer consultation in case of any uncertainty:
- For reviews with quick turnaround or small topics, extraction and synthesis is typically conducted in the review body itself.
- For long or complex topics, particularly with multiple sub-questions, data extraction is completed and available on request (in Excel or Covidence).
- Multiple levels of review of the evidence check or brief by CIU team members and executive lead; requesting clinical or policy team; steering committee or clinical expert advisory group; and at least one external peer reviewer; and the ACI Communications team.
For rapid reviews, we do not usually search multiple databases, or conduct formal critical appraisal, such as GRADE, statistical comparison or meta-analysis.
Detailed methods are included in an appendix of the relevant evidence check or brief.
How we use grey literature
Identification of grey literature is via hand-searching and recommendations from the clinical advisory group, e.g. government reports, policy statements, professional organisation guidelines and preprint articles, where appropriate to topic.
Grey literature is relevant due to the majority of our review topics being centred around either models of care, where success stories and lessons learnt are sought from other jurisdictions, or consensus on best practice in areas where evidence is equivocal or dependant on context.
Minimising bias and external peer review
External and independent peer review is sought to appraise our evidence reviews before they are finalised and published.
External peer reviewers are typically expert clinicians, academics or policy experts from other jurisdictions with health systems similar to NSW Health. They are not involved in the requesting, writing or internal review of the evidence review and are not associated with any broader projects that the evidence review may inform. This ensures peer reviewers remain impartial.
External reviewers are asked to evaluate:
- the coverage of the review, including whether the information is complete and accurate, and that no key papers in the field have been missed
- the relevancy of the information, findings and interpretations
- any other comments.
Acknowledgements
Thank you to the following peer reviewers for their expertise, insight and time.
External reviews improve the quality and scientific rigour of our work and support our mandate to provide rapid evidence synthesis to NSW Health which is also publicly available.
Our reviewers in 2026 include:
- Dr Rajiv Rattan
- Dr Praisoody Sinnappurajar
- Dr Mariya Farah Kitson
- Professor Frances Lin
- Dr Scott J. Fitzpatrick
- Dr Alyssa R Morse
- Dr Sergei Bedrikovetski
- Dr Gabriella McCray
Only peer reviewers who have given consent for their name to appear are listed.