032 Rapid Guidelines: A Systematic Review
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Background Guidelines often take two or more years to be developed. This timeframe is not practical for providing guidance in situations when rapid advice is needed. Objectives To describe current practices about the development of rapid guidelines and to provide advice about adequate methodology. Methods We performed a systematic review, including grey literature, to identify (1) rapid guidelines, defined as guidelines produced in a shortened time frame, and (2) methodological manuals addressing its development. Results We only documents by WHO and NICE that described methods and actual guidelines. The WHO handbook describes “rapid advice guidelines”; guidelines produced in response to a public health emergency in which WHO is required to provide rapid global leadership and guidance. This advice should be produced within 1 to 3 months and be evidence-informed, however, it may not be supported by full reviews of the evidence. We identified six WHO rapid guidelines and one methodological guidance paper based on a WHO guideline. NICE produces “short clinical guidelines”; guidelines that address only part of a care pathway, allowing rapid (11–13-month) development of guidance on aspects of care for which the NHS requires urgent advice. We identified 18 NICE short clinical guidelines. Discussion Literature is lacking about rapid guidelines and the intended role appears to differ. Despite its relevance, there are few rapid guidelines published and clarity about the terminology is needed. Implications for Guideline Developers We will provide a framework for those developing rapid guidelines, including practical advice and clarification about the terminology used.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.046 | 0.218 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.006 | 0.007 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.020 | 0.018 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.002 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.004 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.004 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.004 | 0.003 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.015 | 0.002 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".