Rapid Review
Cross-source consensus on Rapid Review from 1 sources and 6 claims.
1 sources · 6 claims
Risks & contraindications
Comparisons
Evidence quality
Highlighted claims
- A rapid review is similar to a systematic review but completed within a shorter timeframe and narrower scope. — Impact of portal vein embolisation uses in colorectal liver metastases: evidence from a rapid review
- The review included 14 studies covering 2,022 patients with CRLM from eight countries. — Impact of portal vein embolisation uses in colorectal liver metastases: evidence from a rapid review
- Meta-analysis was not possible due to heterogeneous study designs, small sample sizes, and differing outcome reporting, so the synthesis was narrative. — Impact of portal vein embolisation uses in colorectal liver metastases: evidence from a rapid review
- Most included studies were small and retrospective, and there were no randomised controlled trials directly comparing PVE with alternative techniques. — Impact of portal vein embolisation uses in colorectal liver metastases: evidence from a rapid review
- Inclusion of conference abstracts may have introduced bias because they lack full peer-reviewed methodological detail. — Impact of portal vein embolisation uses in colorectal liver metastases: evidence from a rapid review
- Comparisons between PVEfLR and ALPPS or transplantation may be biased because ALPPS and transplantation outcomes are often reported per protocol rather than intent-to-treat. — Impact of portal vein embolisation uses in colorectal liver metastases: evidence from a rapid review