Systematic reviews (SRs) are the most valid and reliable scientific evidence to evaluate the effectiveness of healthcare interventions. However, substantial resources and months are required to conduct such a review. Most hospital-based health technology assessment (HB-HTA) units don't have the time and the academic team to produce SRs. Rapid evidence assessment (REA) may represent, in this local context, an interesting avenue. The aim was to evaluate characteristics of REA and their impacts on healthcare decision making.

A SR was performed in several databases and grey literature to search data on REA including Mini-HTA and rapid reviews methodologies through March 2017. Data selection, extraction and quality assessment were performed by two independent researchers. Outcomes were about REA's methodology including question, search strategy, inclusion criteria, study selection, data extraction, quality assessment, critical appraisal and impacts on decision making.

Twelve publications on REA have been included. More similarities were found in the methodology between rapid review and SR than with Mini-HTA. Shortcuts in performing rapid reviews included evaluation scope, number of databases, gray literature websites, studies design mainly SR, reviewers number, critical appraisal and production time (3 to 6 months). Study selection and data extraction by two independent reviewers in rapid reviews were seen in thirty-four percent to thirty-eight percent and ten percent to twenty-two percent, respectively. Furthermore, assessment quality was optional. Although it is performed within a short timeframe (2 months), methodology to conduct Mini-HTA is not well defined in the literature. The scope is mainly to support decision making in the introduction of new medical devices. Impacts of REA on local health decision making process are not well documented.

Methodology to conduct REA is quite diverse. According to the data available, rapid review is a more robust methodology for HB-HTA producers than Mini-HTA. Although impacts were not well reported, rapid reviews could be more useful to support health decision making in local context.