ABSTRACT Context Rapid Reviews are secondary studies aiming to deliver evidence to experts in a more timely manner and with lower costs than traditional literature reviews. Previous studies have shown that experts and researchers are positive toward Rapid Reviews. However, little is known about how Rapid Reviews differ from traditional Systematic Reviews. Objective The goal of this paper is to compare a Rapid Review with a Systematic Review in terms of their methods (e.g., search strategy, study selection, quality assessment, and data extraction) and findings to understand how optimizing the traditional Systematic Review method impacts what we obtain with Rapid Review. Method To achieve this goal, we conducted a Systematic Review with the same research questions answered by a pre‐existing Rapid Review and compared those two studies. Also, we surveyed experts from industry and academia to evaluate the relevance of the findings obtained from both the secondary studies. Results The Rapid Review lasted 6 days, while the Systematic Review took 1 year and 2 months. The main bottlenecks we identified in the Systematic Review are (i) executing the search strategy and (ii) selecting the procedure. Together, they took 10 months. The researchers had to analyze the information from 11,383 papers for the Systematic Review compared with 1973 for the Rapid Review. Still, most ( 78%) of the papers included in the Systematic Review were returned by the Rapid Review search, and some papers that could be included were unduly excluded during the Rapid Review's selection procedure. Both secondary studies identified the same number of pieces of evidence (30), but the pieces of evidence are not the same. Conclusion The Rapid Review and Systematic Review results are inherently different and complementary. The time and cost to conduct a Systematic Review can be prohibitive in experts' contexts. Thus, at least in such situations, a Rapid Review may be an adequate choice. Moreover, a Rapid Review may be executed in the experts' context as a previous low‐cost step before deciding to invest in a high‐cost Systematic Review.

Previous research identifies facilitators and barriers related to the use of Alternative and Augmentative Communication Systems, however, more evidence is needed to understand aspects related to introduction of such systems in an outpatient setting. This paper aims to analyze theses aspects by identifying the facilitators and barriers that comprise systems' use by aphasic people at a University Clinic in Brazil. Semi-structured interviews were conducted and the collected data were analyzed based on qualitative techniques like open coding and constant comparison. In addition to the factors found in previous research, this study identified new factors such as: cost, infantilized systems and sentences' quality produced, that can be considered as facilitators or barriers in using AAC systems. The results of this research can be used to improve the current and new AAC systems.