The Dark Side of Rapid Reviews: A Retreat From Systematic Approaches and the Need for Clear Expectations and Reporting

S ystematic reviews require substantial time, resources, and energy from author teams, taking anywhere from 6 months to 2 years to complete, with an average development time of 67.3 weeks (1). “Rapid reviews” have been proposed to shorten the completion time frame of a systematic review. During the COVID-19 pandemic, approximately 3000 rapid reviews were published (2). The benefits and utility of rapid reviews that abbreviate, omit, or simplify traditional systematic review methods to address knowledge users' (patients and public partners, health care providers, funders, and policymakers) needs in a timely fashion are discussed elsewhere (3). In this paper, we aim to highlight some risks and concerns associated with rapid reviews that do not follow a systematic approach or involve relevant knowledge users— and to reflect on the frequently overlooked “dark side” of rapid reviews.