Systematic reviews and meta-analyses (based on systematic reviews) are considered “gold standard” for knowledge and evidence synthesis.
However, their main limitation is the significant amount of time and resources that are usually required to produce a high-quality comprehensive systematic review or meta-analysis. Thus, they may not be feasible when evidence or knowledge summaries are required within a relatively short timeframes or on a limited budget.
The authors propose rapid reviews as an alternative synthesis method suitable for the field of built environment. Rapid reviews are, basically, “systematic reviews with shortcuts”. In rapid reviews, sacrifices are made to the synthesis process, for example, comprehensiveness of the data search and / or the depth of assessment of the found evidence. However, the key principles of the systematic review approach should be followed, especially the ones safeguarding transparency of the review methods and findings. In this sense, the rapid review methodology is universal and transferable across the disciplines. However, most systematic review and rapid review guidelines are written for the medical and social sciences and are tailored to the question and data types encountered in these disciplines. Built environment research is cross-disciplinary, and while for some topics the available guidelines may provide a good fit, more general plain-language guidelines are also needed.
Well-conducted rapid reviews can provide evidence inventories and assessments of evidence that can inform downstream investigation and decision-making. They help deciding whether to proceed with a full systematic review, re-focus on specific aspects of the evidence or direct future primary research. Rapid reviews can be useful for guideline development and form the evidence basis for urgent policy changes within specific settings.
The authors aim to provide the reader with an understanding of what rapid review is, when rapid reviews might be useful, and the core concepts of the systematic review process, in a way that is accessible to people with various backgrounds. The authors include tips on how to conduct rapid review efficiently and list references to useful resources, e.g. software and more specialised reading.
This guide is aimed for the teams who conduct rapid reviews on topics and questions not just for their own use (or publication in an academic journal), but also for stakeholders (or “end users of reviews”; usually policymakers or practitioners). Thus, the authors consider the stakeholders and fulfilling their requirements as an important and integral aspect of a rapid review process. However, this guide does not cover rapid review commissioning and dissemination stages.
Research showed that one-quarter of Sydney respondents were open to consolidating property for sale with neighbours. However, consolidated lot sales are not part of the business model of most real estate agencies, local government, or property developers. It’s an area where the...Read more
Australia's Chief Scientist Alan Finkel points out, in this interview, the need for Australia to develop better storage systems and reflects on the recent report from ACOLA. California Energy Commissioner Andrew McAllister, also warns Australia to pursue demand side...Read more
The systematic review process in research ensures that all applicable research is considered. These studies demonstrate a rapid review method which enables a quicker answer to some of government's immediate pressing questions.Read more
The main question guiding this rapid review was: “Drawing on secondary literature that employs systematic review and meta-analytic approaches, what do we know about digital services and communication platforms that allow for residential customer engagement and interaction with the energy system?”
The main question guiding this rapid review was: “Drawing on primary and secondary literature employing various approaches, what do we know about digital services and communication platforms that allow for residential customer engagement and interaction with the energy system in Australia?”
Sharing of key evidence on strategies for reducing resources consumption and lowering carbon footprint is essential to alleviating risks of increasing urbanization, population growth and looming climate change impacts. However, finding scientifically robust research and distilling knowledge to draw confident conclusions in a reasonable timeframe is challenging due to the sheer volume...