Rapid Evidence Synthesis vs. Traditional Systematic Reviews: When to Choose and How AI Accelerates the Shift

The tension between methodological rigor and timely delivery of evidence has become one of the most pressing challenges in evidence-based decision-making. Traditional systematic reviews, while representing the gold standard for synthesizing research evidence, require an average of 67.3 weeks to complete and involve substantial human resources. In contrast, rapid reviews can be completed in 1 week to 6 months, depending on scope and methodology. This fundamental trade-off between thoroughness and timeliness is being reshaped by artificial intelligence tools that promise to accelerate the review process without proportionally sacrificing quality.