A lot of my work revolves around answer clinical questions rapidly. In the 'evidence based' world we are frequently told to do comprehensive searches, obtain full-text, critically appraise etc. However, most people will acknowledge this is unlikely to happen for the vast majority of clinical questions. So, we take short cuts. These might involved only searching Medline, only looking at the abstracts, only getting the full-text from 1 or 2 papers or numerous other short-cuts and combinations of them.

But does anyone have a feel for the effects, has it been studied? How does a systematic review compare to a rapid review taking 2 weeks, 2 days, 2 hours or even 2 minutes. If this was to be studies what methodology would be used?

I work on the assumption that we're doing a fair bit of good and hopefully no harm - but that's not said with any degree of certainty.