Understanding of topic
Perform searches of one or more databases
There are many types of evidence synthesis projects, including systematic reviews as well as others. The selection of review type is wholly dependent on the research question. Not all research questions are well-suited for systematic reviews.
Review the table to peruse review types and associated methodologies. Librarians can also help your team determine which review type might be appropriate for your project.
Reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or mode | Seeks to identify most significant items in the field | No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution | Typically narrative, perhaps conceptual or chronological | Significant component: seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory |
| Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Typically narrative | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. |
| Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints | No formal quality assessment | May be graphical and tabular | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research |
| Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/ exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity |
| Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies | Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies | Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists | Typically both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies | Analysis may characterise both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other |
| Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics | May or may not include comprehensive searching (depends whether systematic overview or not) | May or may not include quality assessment (depends whether systematic overview or not) | Synthesis depends on whether systematic or not. Typically narrative but may include tabular features | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. |
| Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies | May employ selective or purposive sampling | Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion | Qualitative, narrative synthesis | Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models |
| Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research | Completeness of searching determined by time constraints | Time-limited formal quality assessment | Typically narrative and tabular | Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature |
| Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress | No formal quality assessment | Typically tabular with some narrative commentary | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review |
| Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives | Aims for comprehensive searching of current literature | No formal quality assessment | Typically narrative, may have tabular accompaniment | Current state of knowledge and priorities for future investigation and research |
| Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research |
| Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’ | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Minimal narrative, tabular summary of studies | What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations |
| Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Typically narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; uncertainty around findings; limitations of methodology |
| Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results | Identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies | Quality assessment of studies within component reviews and/or of reviews themselves | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; recommendations for future research |
The Ohio State University
Systematic vs. traditional literature reviews, other types of literature review, what does it take to do a systematic review.
To make an appointment to consult with an HSL librarian on your systematic review, please read our Systematic Review Policy and submit a Systematic Review Consultation Request .
To ask a question or make an appointment for assistance with a narrative review, please complete the Ask a Librarian Form .
Before you begin, it's important to understand how a systematic review is different from other kinds of literature reviews, and to be sure that your objectives and resources are suited to conducting a systematic review.
A well-defined research question. | Not necessarily focused on a specific question. May give an overview of a topic. | |
Designed with the goal of finding all existing literature on the research question, both published and unpublished. The process is well-documented and reported for transparency and reproducibility. | May be ad hoc, and may not be exhaustive or fully comprehensive. The process may not be documented. | |
Established prior to searching, consistently applied, and clearly reported. | May not be specified. | |
Comprehensive appraisal of the quality of included studies, and evaluation of bias. | Studies' validity and biases may not be assessed. | |
Systematic, generates a conclusion to the question posed based on quality evidence. | Summary of studies, may reflect authors' bias. |
There are several other types of review that may use methods similar to systematic reviews:
The following resources provide information on the various types of review and how to conduct them:
This quiz can help you determine if you have the resources to undertake a systematic review, or if a different type of review might be more appropriate:
What is a systematic review.
A systematic review is a particular type of evidence synthesis whose methodology seeks to maximize objectivity and transparency while minimizing bias in the identification, evaluation and use of information used to support an answer to a research question. Here below are some ways different authors have described the systematic review approach:
" A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making " (Cochrane Library website: About Cochrane Reviews , 2022)
“ a review of existing research using explicitly, accountable rigorous research methods ” (Gough, Oliver & Thomas, 2017)
“ a set of transparent, orderly, structurally interrelated steps, carried out in a way that avoids bias and allows for peer review and independent verification. The SR addresses a clearly defined question. It uses a systematic, that is, logical, and explicit methodology to identify, select, and critically appraise relevant studies ” (Holly, Salmond & Saimbert, 2022)
“ a particular form of secondary study and aims to provide an objective and unbiased approach to finding relevant primary studies, and for extracting, aggregating and synthesizing the data from these .” (Kitchenham, Budgen & Brereton, 2016)
The details of systematic review methodology may vary across different fields of study, including, but not limited to: medicine, nursing, psychology, education, the social sciences, and increasingly in the fields of engineering and software development.
Other determining factors for the systematic review methodology include: the nature of the information sources being used; the type of information collected; the specificity of the research question; the breadth or narrowness of the inclusion criteria, exclusion criteria and search strategy; and the particular research goals of the investigators (for additional guidance, refer to the " Further Reading & Guidance " section of this guide).
One of the most important variations on systematic review methodology is the ' meta-analysis '--a type of evidence synthesis that includes statistical analysis of information collected from multiple independent studies (e.g. from different clinical trials).
Systematic reviews may be published and disseminated in the form of journal articles, book chapters, graduate theses and dissertations, technical reports, conference proceedings, and other document types.
The main attributes that systematic reviews have in common include:
If your goals or resources are not consistent with those listed above, a different review methodology may be a better fit for your project. Other evidence synthesis methodologies to consider may include: rapid review, scoping review, narrative literature review, or a methodology that incorporates elements of a systematic review approach but a lesser degree of rigor or exhaustiveness (see the " Planning & Logistics " section of this guide).
If in any doubt about the appropriateness of a systematic review methodology--or any other type of knowledge synthesis--for meeting your research goals, feel encouraged to discuss options with a librarian (bring along any collaborators and/or instructors in your project team).
Before embarking on your project, here below is a decision-support tool offering guidance as to the appropriateness of the systematic review methodology for fulfilling your particular research goals:
What kind of review is right for you?
(Cornell University Library)
3312 Accesses
16 Citations
Systematic reviews and purposive (nonsystematic) reviews serve valuable and complementary roles in synthesizing the results of original research studies. Systematic reviews use rigorous methods of article selection and data extraction to shed focused, deep light on a relatively narrow body of research, yet of necessity may exclude potentially insightful works that fall outside the predefined scope. Purposive reviews offer flexibility to address more far-reaching questions and pursue novel insights, yet offer little assurance of a balanced perspective on the issue. This chapter reviews the strengths and weaknesses of each approach, and suggests specific questions to help researchers select among these approaches. Different approaches to quantitative and narrative research synthesis, including meta-analysis, are also described.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Institutional subscriptions
Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Inf Libr J. 2009;26:91–108.
Article Google Scholar
Pawson R, Greenhalgh T, Harvey G, Walshe K. Realist review – a new method of systematic review designed for complex policy interventions. J Health Serv Res Policy. 2005;10(Suppl 1):21–34.
Arksey H, O’Malley L. Scoping studies: towards a methodological framework. Int J Soc Res Methodol. 2005;8:19–32.
Levac D, Colquhoun H, O’Brien KK. Scoping studies: advancing the methodology. Implement Sci. 2010;5:69.
Cook DA. Narrowing the focus and broadening horizons: complementary roles for nonsystematic and systematic reviews. Adv Health Sci Educ Theory Pract. 2008;13:391–5.
Cook DA. Randomized controlled trials and meta-analysis in medical education: what role do they play? Med Teach. 2012;34:468–73.
Eva KW. On the limits of systematicity. Med Educ. 2008;42:852–3.
Cook DA. Tips for a great review article: crossing methodological boundaries. Med Educ. 2016;50:384–7.
Cook DA, Bordage G, Schmidt HG. Description, justification, and clarification: a framework for classifying the purposes of research in medical education. Med Educ. 2008;42:128–33.
Cooper H, Hedges LV, Valentine JC. The handbook of research synthesis. 2nd ed. New York: Russell Sage Foundation; 2009.
Google Scholar
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions. Chichester: Wiley-Blackwell; 2008.
Book Google Scholar
Cook DA, West CP. Conducting systematic reviews in medical education: a stepwise approach. Med Educ. 2012;46:943–52.
Cook DJ, Mulrow CD, Haynes RB. Systematic reviews: synthesis of best evidence for clinical decisions. Ann Intern Med. 1997;126:376–80.
Article CAS Google Scholar
Higgins JPT, Green S. Cochrane handbook for systematic reviews of interventions 5.1.0 [updated March 2011]. Available at: http://handbook-5-1.cochrane.org/ . Accessed 31 May 2018.
Campbell Collaboration. Campbell Collaboration Resource Center. Available at: https://campbellcollaboration.org/research-resources/research-for-resources.html . Accessed 31 May 2018.
Moher D, Liberati A, Tetzlaff J, Altman DG. Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: The PRISMA statement. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:264–9.
Wong G, Greenhalgh T, Westhorp G, Buckingham J, Pawson R. RAMESES publication standards: realist syntheses. BMC Med. 2013;11:21.
Montori VM, Swiontkowski MF, Cook DJ. Methodologic issues in systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2003;413:43–54.
Download references
Authors and affiliations.
Mayo Clinic Multidisciplinary Simulation Center, Office of Applied Scholarship and Education Science, and Division of General Internal Medicine, Mayo Clinic College of Medicine and Science, Rochester, MN, USA
David A. Cook
You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar
Correspondence to David A. Cook .
Editors and affiliations.
Monash Institute for Health and Clinical Education, Monash University, Clayton, VIC, Australia
Debra Nestel
Emergency Medicine, Kaiser Permanente, Los Angeles Medical Center, Los Angeles, CA, USA
Department of Surgery, University of Maryland, Baltimore, Baltimore, MD, USA
Kevin Kunkler
Department of Psychology, Old Dominion University, Norfolk, VA, USA
Mark W. Scerbo
Department of Pediatrics, University of Louisville School of Medicine, Louisville, KY, USA
Aaron W. Calhoun
Reprints and permissions
© 2019 Springer Nature Switzerland AG
Cook, D.A. (2019). Systematic and Nonsystematic Reviews: Choosing an Approach. In: Nestel, D., Hui, J., Kunkler, K., Scerbo, M., Calhoun, A. (eds) Healthcare Simulation Research. Springer, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26837-4_8
DOI : https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-26837-4_8
Published : 14 November 2019
Publisher Name : Springer, Cham
Print ISBN : 978-3-030-26836-7
Online ISBN : 978-3-030-26837-4
eBook Packages : Biomedical and Life Sciences Biomedical and Life Sciences (R0)
Anyone you share the following link with will be able to read this content:
Sorry, a shareable link is not currently available for this article.
Provided by the Springer Nature SharedIt content-sharing initiative
Policies and ethics
An official website of the United States government
The .gov means it’s official. Federal government websites often end in .gov or .mil. Before sharing sensitive information, make sure you’re on a federal government site.
The site is secure. The https:// ensures that you are connecting to the official website and that any information you provide is encrypted and transmitted securely.
Preview improvements coming to the PMC website in October 2024. Learn More or Try it out now .
Prabhakar veginadu.
1 Department of Rural Clinical Sciences, La Trobe Rural Health School, La Trobe University, Bendigo Victoria, Australia
2 Lincoln International Institute for Rural Health, University of Lincoln, Brayford Pool, Lincoln UK
3 Department of Orthodontics, Saveetha Dental College, Chennai Tamil Nadu, India
Associated data.
APPENDIX B: List of excluded studies with detailed reasons for exclusion
APPENDIX C: Quality assessment of included reviews using AMSTAR 2
The aim of this overview is to identify and collate evidence from existing published systematic review (SR) articles evaluating various methodological approaches used at each stage of an SR.
The search was conducted in five electronic databases from inception to November 2020 and updated in February 2022: MEDLINE, Embase, Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and APA PsycINFO. Title and abstract screening were performed in two stages by one reviewer, supported by a second reviewer. Full‐text screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal were performed by two reviewers independently. The quality of the included SRs was assessed using the AMSTAR 2 checklist.
The search retrieved 41,556 unique citations, of which 9 SRs were deemed eligible for inclusion in final synthesis. Included SRs evaluated 24 unique methodological approaches used for defining the review scope and eligibility, literature search, screening, data extraction, and quality appraisal in the SR process. Limited evidence supports the following (a) searching multiple resources (electronic databases, handsearching, and reference lists) to identify relevant literature; (b) excluding non‐English, gray, and unpublished literature, and (c) use of text‐mining approaches during title and abstract screening.
The overview identified limited SR‐level evidence on various methodological approaches currently employed during five of the seven fundamental steps in the SR process, as well as some methodological modifications currently used in expedited SRs. Overall, findings of this overview highlight the dearth of published SRs focused on SR methodologies and this warrants future work in this area.
Evidence synthesis is a prerequisite for knowledge translation. 1 A well conducted systematic review (SR), often in conjunction with meta‐analyses (MA) when appropriate, is considered the “gold standard” of methods for synthesizing evidence related to a topic of interest. 2 The central strength of an SR is the transparency of the methods used to systematically search, appraise, and synthesize the available evidence. 3 Several guidelines, developed by various organizations, are available for the conduct of an SR; 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 among these, Cochrane is considered a pioneer in developing rigorous and highly structured methodology for the conduct of SRs. 8 The guidelines developed by these organizations outline seven fundamental steps required in SR process: defining the scope of the review and eligibility criteria, literature searching and retrieval, selecting eligible studies, extracting relevant data, assessing risk of bias (RoB) in included studies, synthesizing results, and assessing certainty of evidence (CoE) and presenting findings. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7
The methodological rigor involved in an SR can require a significant amount of time and resource, which may not always be available. 9 As a result, there has been a proliferation of modifications made to the traditional SR process, such as refining, shortening, bypassing, or omitting one or more steps, 10 , 11 for example, limits on the number and type of databases searched, limits on publication date, language, and types of studies included, and limiting to one reviewer for screening and selection of studies, as opposed to two or more reviewers. 10 , 11 These methodological modifications are made to accommodate the needs of and resource constraints of the reviewers and stakeholders (e.g., organizations, policymakers, health care professionals, and other knowledge users). While such modifications are considered time and resource efficient, they may introduce bias in the review process reducing their usefulness. 5
Substantial research has been conducted examining various approaches used in the standardized SR methodology and their impact on the validity of SR results. There are a number of published reviews examining the approaches or modifications corresponding to single 12 , 13 or multiple steps 14 involved in an SR. However, there is yet to be a comprehensive summary of the SR‐level evidence for all the seven fundamental steps in an SR. Such a holistic evidence synthesis will provide an empirical basis to confirm the validity of current accepted practices in the conduct of SRs. Furthermore, sometimes there is a balance that needs to be achieved between the resource availability and the need to synthesize the evidence in the best way possible, given the constraints. This evidence base will also inform the choice of modifications to be made to the SR methods, as well as the potential impact of these modifications on the SR results. An overview is considered the choice of approach for summarizing existing evidence on a broad topic, directing the reader to evidence, or highlighting the gaps in evidence, where the evidence is derived exclusively from SRs. 15 Therefore, for this review, an overview approach was used to (a) identify and collate evidence from existing published SR articles evaluating various methodological approaches employed in each of the seven fundamental steps of an SR and (b) highlight both the gaps in the current research and the potential areas for future research on the methods employed in SRs.
An a priori protocol was developed for this overview but was not registered with the International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews (PROSPERO), as the review was primarily methodological in nature and did not meet PROSPERO eligibility criteria for registration. The protocol is available from the corresponding author upon reasonable request. This overview was conducted based on the guidelines for the conduct of overviews as outlined in The Cochrane Handbook. 15 Reporting followed the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic reviews and Meta‐analyses (PRISMA) statement. 3
Only published SRs, with or without associated MA, were included in this overview. We adopted the defining characteristics of SRs from The Cochrane Handbook. 5 According to The Cochrane Handbook, a review was considered systematic if it satisfied the following criteria: (a) clearly states the objectives and eligibility criteria for study inclusion; (b) provides reproducible methodology; (c) includes a systematic search to identify all eligible studies; (d) reports assessment of validity of findings of included studies (e.g., RoB assessment of the included studies); (e) systematically presents all the characteristics or findings of the included studies. 5 Reviews that did not meet all of the above criteria were not considered a SR for this study and were excluded. MA‐only articles were included if it was mentioned that the MA was based on an SR.
SRs and/or MA of primary studies evaluating methodological approaches used in defining review scope and study eligibility, literature search, study selection, data extraction, RoB assessment, data synthesis, and CoE assessment and reporting were included. The methodological approaches examined in these SRs and/or MA can also be related to the substeps or elements of these steps; for example, applying limits on date or type of publication are the elements of literature search. Included SRs examined or compared various aspects of a method or methods, and the associated factors, including but not limited to: precision or effectiveness; accuracy or reliability; impact on the SR and/or MA results; reproducibility of an SR steps or bias occurred; time and/or resource efficiency. SRs assessing the methodological quality of SRs (e.g., adherence to reporting guidelines), evaluating techniques for building search strategies or the use of specific database filters (e.g., use of Boolean operators or search filters for randomized controlled trials), examining various tools used for RoB or CoE assessment (e.g., ROBINS vs. Cochrane RoB tool), or evaluating statistical techniques used in meta‐analyses were excluded. 14
The search for published SRs was performed on the following scientific databases initially from inception to third week of November 2020 and updated in the last week of February 2022: MEDLINE (via Ovid), Embase (via Ovid), Web of Science Core Collection, Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and American Psychological Association (APA) PsycINFO. Search was restricted to English language publications. Following the objectives of this study, study design filters within databases were used to restrict the search to SRs and MA, where available. The reference lists of included SRs were also searched for potentially relevant publications.
The search terms included keywords, truncations, and subject headings for the key concepts in the review question: SRs and/or MA, methods, and evaluation. Some of the terms were adopted from the search strategy used in a previous review by Robson et al., which reviewed primary studies on methodological approaches used in study selection, data extraction, and quality appraisal steps of SR process. 14 Individual search strategies were developed for respective databases by combining the search terms using appropriate proximity and Boolean operators, along with the related subject headings in order to identify SRs and/or MA. 16 , 17 A senior librarian was consulted in the design of the search terms and strategy. Appendix A presents the detailed search strategies for all five databases.
Title and abstract screening of references were performed in three steps. First, one reviewer (PV) screened all the titles and excluded obviously irrelevant citations, for example, articles on topics not related to SRs, non‐SR publications (such as randomized controlled trials, observational studies, scoping reviews, etc.). Next, from the remaining citations, a random sample of 200 titles and abstracts were screened against the predefined eligibility criteria by two reviewers (PV and MM), independently, in duplicate. Discrepancies were discussed and resolved by consensus. This step ensured that the responses of the two reviewers were calibrated for consistency in the application of the eligibility criteria in the screening process. Finally, all the remaining titles and abstracts were reviewed by a single “calibrated” reviewer (PV) to identify potential full‐text records. Full‐text screening was performed by at least two authors independently (PV screened all the records, and duplicate assessment was conducted by MM, HC, or MG), with discrepancies resolved via discussions or by consulting a third reviewer.
Data related to review characteristics, results, key findings, and conclusions were extracted by at least two reviewers independently (PV performed data extraction for all the reviews and duplicate extraction was performed by AP, HC, or MG).
The quality assessment of the included SRs was performed using the AMSTAR 2 (A MeaSurement Tool to Assess systematic Reviews). The tool consists of a 16‐item checklist addressing critical and noncritical domains. 18 For the purpose of this study, the domain related to MA was reclassified from critical to noncritical, as SRs with and without MA were included. The other six critical domains were used according to the tool guidelines. 18 Two reviewers (PV and AP) independently responded to each of the 16 items in the checklist with either “yes,” “partial yes,” or “no.” Based on the interpretations of the critical and noncritical domains, the overall quality of the review was rated as high, moderate, low, or critically low. 18 Disagreements were resolved through discussion or by consulting a third reviewer.
To provide an understandable summary of existing evidence syntheses, characteristics of the methods evaluated in the included SRs were examined and key findings were categorized and presented based on the corresponding step in the SR process. The categories of key elements within each step were discussed and agreed by the authors. Results of the included reviews were tabulated and summarized descriptively, along with a discussion on any overlap in the primary studies. 15 No quantitative analyses of the data were performed.
From 41,556 unique citations identified through literature search, 50 full‐text records were reviewed, and nine systematic reviews 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 were deemed eligible for inclusion. The flow of studies through the screening process is presented in Figure 1 . A list of excluded studies with reasons can be found in Appendix B .
Study selection flowchart
Table 1 summarizes the characteristics of included SRs. The majority of the included reviews (six of nine) were published after 2010. 14 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 Four of the nine included SRs were Cochrane reviews. 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 The number of databases searched in the reviews ranged from 2 to 14, 2 reviews searched gray literature sources, 24 , 25 and 7 reviews included a supplementary search strategy to identify relevant literature. 14 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 26 Three of the included SRs (all Cochrane reviews) included an integrated MA. 20 , 21 , 23
Characteristics of included studies
Author, year | Search strategy (year last searched; no. databases; supplementary searches) | SR design (type of review; no. of studies included) | Topic; subject area | SR objectives | SR authors’ comments on study quality |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Crumley, 2005 | 2004; Seven databases; four journals handsearched, reference lists and contacting authors | SR; = 64 | RCTs and CCTs; not specified | To identify and quantitatively review studies comparing two or more different resources (e.g., databases, Internet, handsearching) used to identify RCTs and CCTs for systematic reviews. | Most of the studies adequately described reproducible search methods, expected search yield. Poor quality in studies was mainly due to lack of rigor in reporting selection methodology. Majority of the studies did not indicate the number of people involved in independently screening the searches or applying eligibility criteria to identify potentially relevant studies. |
Hopewell, 2007 | 2002; eight databases; selected journals and published abstracts handsearched, and contacting authors | SR and MA; = 34 (34 in quantitative analysis) | RCTs; health care | To review systematically empirical studies, which have compared the results of handsearching with the results of searching one or more electronic databases to identify reports of randomized trials. | The electronic search was designed and carried out appropriately in majority of the studies, while the appropriateness of handsearching was unclear in half the studies because of limited information. The screening studies methods used in both groups were comparable in most of the studies. |
Hopewell, 2007 | 2005; two databases; selected journals and published abstracts handsearched, reference lists, citations and contacting authors | SR and MA; = 5 (5 in quantitative analysis) | RCTs; health care | To review systematically research studies, which have investigated the impact of gray literature in meta‐analyses of randomized trials of health care interventions. | In majority of the studies, electronic searches were designed and conducted appropriately, and the selection of studies for eligibility was similar for handsearching and database searching. Insufficient data for most studies to assess the appropriateness of handsearching and investigator agreeability on the eligibility of the trial reports. |
Horsley, 2011 | 2008; three databases; reference lists, citations and contacting authors | SR; = 12 | Any topic or study area | To investigate the effectiveness of checking reference lists for the identification of additional, relevant studies for systematic reviews. Effectiveness is defined as the proportion of relevant studies identified by review authors solely by checking reference lists. | Interpretability and generalizability of included studies was difficult. Extensive heterogeneity among the studies in the number and type of databases used. Lack of control in majority of the studies related to the quality and comprehensiveness of searching. |
Morrison, 2012 | 2011; six databases and gray literature | SR; = 5 | RCTs; conventional medicine | To examine the impact of English language restriction on systematic review‐based meta‐analyses | The included studies were assessed to have good reporting quality and validity of results. Methodological issues were mainly noted in the areas of sample power calculation and distribution of confounders. |
Robson, 2019 | 2016; three databases; reference lists and contacting authors | SR; = 37 | N/R | To identify and summarize studies assessing methodologies for study selection, data abstraction, or quality appraisal in systematic reviews. | The quality of the included studies was generally low. Only one study was assessed as having low RoB across all four domains. Majority of the studies were assessed to having unclear RoB across one or more domains. |
Schmucker, 2017 | 2016; four databases; reference lists | SR; = 10 | Study data; medicine | To assess whether the inclusion of data that were not published at all and/or published only in the gray literature influences pooled effect estimates in meta‐analyses and leads to different interpretation. | Majority of the included studies could not be judged on the adequacy of matching or adjusting for confounders of the gray/unpublished data in comparison to published data. |
Also, generalizability of results was low or unclear in four research projects | |||||
Morissette, 2011 | 2009; five databases; reference lists and contacting authors | SR and MA; = 6 (5 included in quantitative analysis) | N/R | To determine whether blinded versus unblinded assessments of risk of bias result in similar or systematically different assessments in studies included in a systematic review. | Four studies had unclear risk of bias, while two studies had high risk of bias. |
O'Mara‐Eves, 2015 | 2013; 14 databases and gray literature | SR; = 44 | N/R | To gather and present the available research evidence on existing methods for text mining related to the title and abstract screening stage in a systematic review, including the performance metrics used to evaluate these technologies. | Quality appraised based on two criteria‐sampling of test cases and adequacy of methods description for replication. No study was excluded based on the quality (author contact). |
SR = systematic review; MA = meta‐analysis; RCT = randomized controlled trial; CCT = controlled clinical trial; N/R = not reported.
The included SRs evaluated 24 unique methodological approaches (26 in total) used across five steps in the SR process; 8 SRs evaluated 6 approaches, 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 while 1 review evaluated 18 approaches. 14 Exclusion of gray or unpublished literature 21 , 26 and blinding of reviewers for RoB assessment 14 , 23 were evaluated in two reviews each. Included SRs evaluated methods used in five different steps in the SR process, including methods used in defining the scope of review ( n = 3), literature search ( n = 3), study selection ( n = 2), data extraction ( n = 1), and RoB assessment ( n = 2) (Table 2 ).
Summary of findings from review evaluating systematic review methods
Key elements | Author, year | Method assessed | Evaluations/outcomes (P—primary; S—secondary) | Summary of SR authors’ conclusions | Quality of review |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
Excluding study data based on publication status | Hopewell, 2007 | Gray vs. published literature | Pooled effect estimate | Published trials are usually larger and show an overall greater treatment effect than gray trials. Excluding trials reported in gray literature from SRs and MAs may exaggerate the results. | Moderate |
Schmucker, 2017 | Gray and/or unpublished vs. published literature | P: Pooled effect estimate | Excluding unpublished trials had no or only a small effect on the pooled estimates of treatment effects. Insufficient evidence to conclude the impact of including unpublished or gray study data on MA conclusions. | Moderate | |
S: Impact on interpretation of MA | |||||
Excluding study data based on language of publication | Morrison, 2012 | English language vs. non‐English language publications | P: Bias in summary treatment effects | No evidence of a systematic bias from the use of English language restrictions in systematic review‐based meta‐analyses in conventional medicine. Conflicting results on the methodological and reporting quality of English and non‐English language RCTs. Further research required. | Low |
S: number of included studies and patients, methodological quality and statistical heterogeneity | |||||
Resources searching | Crumley, 2005 | Two or more resources searching vs. resource‐specific searching | Recall and precision | Multiple‐source comprehensive searches are necessary to identify all RCTs for a systematic review. For electronic databases, using the Cochrane HSS or complex search strategy in consultation with a librarian is recommended. | Critically low |
Supplementary searching | Hopewell, 2007 | Handsearching only vs. one or more electronic database(s) searching | Number of identified randomized trials | Handsearching is important for identifying trial reports for inclusion in systematic reviews of health care interventions published in nonindexed journals. Where time and resources are limited, majority of the full English‐language trial reports can be identified using a complex search or the Cochrane HSS. | Moderate |
Horsley, 2011 | Checking reference list (no comparison) | P: additional yield of checking reference lists | There is some evidence to support the use of checking reference lists to complement literature search in systematic reviews. | Low | |
S: additional yield by publication type, study design or both and data pertaining to costs | |||||
Reviewer characteristics | Robson, 2019 | Single vs. double reviewer screening | P: Accuracy, reliability, or efficiency of a method | Using two reviewers for screening is recommended. If resources are limited, one reviewer can screen, and other reviewer can verify the list of excluded studies. | Low |
S: factors affecting accuracy or reliability of a method | |||||
Experienced vs. inexperienced reviewers for screening | Screening must be performed by experienced reviewers | ||||
Screening by blinded vs. unblinded reviewers | Authors do not recommend blinding of reviewers during screening as the blinding process was time‐consuming and had little impact on the results of MA | ||||
Use of technology for study selection | Robson, 2019 | Use of dual computer monitors vs. nonuse of dual monitors for screening | P: Accuracy, reliability, or efficiency of a method | There are no significant differences in the time spent on abstract or full‐text screening with the use and nonuse of dual monitors | Low |
S: factors affecting accuracy or reliability of a method | |||||
Use of Google translate to translate non‐English citations to facilitate screening | Use of Google translate to screen German language citations | ||||
O'Mara‐Eves, 2015 | Use of text mining for title and abstract screening | Any evaluation concerning workload reduction | Text mining approaches can be used to reduce the number of studies to be screened, increase the rate of screening, improve the workflow with screening prioritization, and replace the second reviewer. The evaluated approaches reported saving a workload of between 30% and 70% | Critically low | |
Order of screening | Robson, 2019 | Title‐first screening vs. title‐and‐abstract simultaneous screening | P: Accuracy, reliability, or efficiency of a method | Title‐first screening showed no substantial gain in time when compared to simultaneous title and abstract screening. | Low |
S: factors affecting accuracy or reliability of a method | |||||
Reviewer characteristics | Robson, 2019 | Single vs. double reviewer data extraction | P: Accuracy, reliability, or efficiency of a method | Use two reviewers for data extraction. Single reviewer data extraction followed by the verification of outcome data by a second reviewer (where statistical analysis is planned), if resources preclude | Low |
S: factors affecting accuracy or reliability of a method | |||||
Experienced vs. inexperienced reviewers for data extraction | Experienced reviewers must be used for extracting continuous outcomes data | ||||
Data extraction by blinded vs. unblinded reviewers | Authors do not recommend blinding of reviewers during data extraction as it had no impact on the results of MA | ||||
Use of technology for data extraction | Use of dual computer monitors vs. nonuse of dual monitors for data extraction | Using two computer monitors may improve the efficiency of data extraction | |||
Data extraction by two English reviewers using Google translate vs. data extraction by two reviewers fluent in respective languages | Google translate provides limited accuracy for data extraction | ||||
Computer‐assisted vs. double reviewer extraction of graphical data | Use of computer‐assisted programs to extract graphical data | ||||
Obtaining additional data | Contacting study authors for additional data | Recommend contacting authors for obtaining additional relevant data | |||
Reviewer characteristics | Robson, 2019 | Quality appraisal by blinded vs. unblinded reviewers | P: Accuracy, reliability, or efficiency of a method | Inconsistent results on RoB assessments performed by blinded and unblinded reviewers. Blinding reviewers for quality appraisal not recommended | Low |
S: factors affecting accuracy or reliability of a method | |||||
Morissette, 2011 | Risk of bias (RoB) assessment by blinded vs. unblinded reviewers | P: Mean difference and 95% confidence interval between RoB assessment scores | Findings related to the difference between blinded and unblinded RoB assessments are inconsistent from the studies. Pooled effects show no differences in RoB assessments for assessments completed in a blinded or unblinded manner. | Moderate | |
S: qualitative level of agreement, mean RoB scores and measures of variance for the results of the RoB assessments, and inter‐rater reliability between blinded and unblinded reviewers | |||||
Robson, 2019 | Experienced vs. inexperienced reviewers for quality appraisal | P: Accuracy, reliability, or efficiency of a method | Reviewers performing quality appraisal must be trained. Quality assessment tool must be pilot tested. | Low | |
S: factors affecting accuracy or reliability of a method | |||||
Use of additional guidance vs. nonuse of additional guidance for quality appraisal | Providing guidance and decision rules for quality appraisal improved the inter‐rater reliability in RoB assessments. | ||||
Obtaining additional data | Contacting study authors for obtaining additional information/use of supplementary information available in the published trials vs. no additional information for quality appraisal | Additional data related to study quality obtained by contacting study authors improved the quality assessment. | |||
RoB assessment of qualitative studies | Structured vs. unstructured appraisal of qualitative research studies | Use of structured tool if qualitative and quantitative studies designs are included in the review. For qualitative reviews, either structured or unstructured quality appraisal tool can be used. |
There was some overlap in the primary studies evaluated in the included SRs on the same topics: Schmucker et al. 26 and Hopewell et al. 21 ( n = 4), Hopewell et al. 20 and Crumley et al. 19 ( n = 30), and Robson et al. 14 and Morissette et al. 23 ( n = 4). There were no conflicting results between any of the identified SRs on the same topic.
Overall, the quality of the included reviews was assessed as moderate at best (Table 2 ). The most common critical weakness in the reviews was failure to provide justification for excluding individual studies (four reviews). Detailed quality assessment is provided in Appendix C .
3.3.1. methods for defining review scope and eligibility.
Two SRs investigated the effect of excluding data obtained from gray or unpublished sources on the pooled effect estimates of MA. 21 , 26 Hopewell et al. 21 reviewed five studies that compared the impact of gray literature on the results of a cohort of MA of RCTs in health care interventions. Gray literature was defined as information published in “print or electronic sources not controlled by commercial or academic publishers.” Findings showed an overall greater treatment effect for published trials than trials reported in gray literature. In a more recent review, Schmucker et al. 26 addressed similar objectives, by investigating gray and unpublished data in medicine. In addition to gray literature, defined similar to the previous review by Hopewell et al., the authors also evaluated unpublished data—defined as “supplemental unpublished data related to published trials, data obtained from the Food and Drug Administration or other regulatory websites or postmarketing analyses hidden from the public.” The review found that in majority of the MA, excluding gray literature had little or no effect on the pooled effect estimates. The evidence was limited to conclude if the data from gray and unpublished literature had an impact on the conclusions of MA. 26
Morrison et al. 24 examined five studies measuring the effect of excluding non‐English language RCTs on the summary treatment effects of SR‐based MA in various fields of conventional medicine. Although none of the included studies reported major difference in the treatment effect estimates between English only and non‐English inclusive MA, the review found inconsistent evidence regarding the methodological and reporting quality of English and non‐English trials. 24 As such, there might be a risk of introducing “language bias” when excluding non‐English language RCTs. The authors also noted that the numbers of non‐English trials vary across medical specialties, as does the impact of these trials on MA results. Based on these findings, Morrison et al. 24 conclude that literature searches must include non‐English studies when resources and time are available to minimize the risk of introducing “language bias.”
Crumley et al. 19 analyzed recall (also referred to as “sensitivity” by some researchers; defined as “percentage of relevant studies identified by the search”) and precision (defined as “percentage of studies identified by the search that were relevant”) when searching a single resource to identify randomized controlled trials and controlled clinical trials, as opposed to searching multiple resources. The studies included in their review frequently compared a MEDLINE only search with the search involving a combination of other resources. The review found low median recall estimates (median values between 24% and 92%) and very low median precisions (median values between 0% and 49%) for most of the electronic databases when searched singularly. 19 A between‐database comparison, based on the type of search strategy used, showed better recall and precision for complex and Cochrane Highly Sensitive search strategies (CHSSS). In conclusion, the authors emphasize that literature searches for trials in SRs must include multiple sources. 19
In an SR comparing handsearching and electronic database searching, Hopewell et al. 20 found that handsearching retrieved more relevant RCTs (retrieval rate of 92%−100%) than searching in a single electronic database (retrieval rates of 67% for PsycINFO/PsycLIT, 55% for MEDLINE, and 49% for Embase). The retrieval rates varied depending on the quality of handsearching, type of electronic search strategy used (e.g., simple, complex or CHSSS), and type of trial reports searched (e.g., full reports, conference abstracts, etc.). The authors concluded that handsearching was particularly important in identifying full trials published in nonindexed journals and in languages other than English, as well as those published as abstracts and letters. 20
The effectiveness of checking reference lists to retrieve additional relevant studies for an SR was investigated by Horsley et al. 22 The review reported that checking reference lists yielded 2.5%–40% more studies depending on the quality and comprehensiveness of the electronic search used. The authors conclude that there is some evidence, although from poor quality studies, to support use of checking reference lists to supplement database searching. 22
Three approaches relevant to reviewer characteristics, including number, experience, and blinding of reviewers involved in the screening process were highlighted in an SR by Robson et al. 14 Based on the retrieved evidence, the authors recommended that two independent, experienced, and unblinded reviewers be involved in study selection. 14 A modified approach has also been suggested by the review authors, where one reviewer screens and the other reviewer verifies the list of excluded studies, when the resources are limited. It should be noted however this suggestion is likely based on the authors’ opinion, as there was no evidence related to this from the studies included in the review.
Robson et al. 14 also reported two methods describing the use of technology for screening studies: use of Google Translate for translating languages (for example, German language articles to English) to facilitate screening was considered a viable method, while using two computer monitors for screening did not increase the screening efficiency in SR. Title‐first screening was found to be more efficient than simultaneous screening of titles and abstracts, although the gain in time with the former method was lesser than the latter. Therefore, considering that the search results are routinely exported as titles and abstracts, Robson et al. 14 recommend screening titles and abstracts simultaneously. However, the authors note that these conclusions were based on very limited number (in most instances one study per method) of low‐quality studies. 14
Robson et al. 14 examined three approaches for data extraction relevant to reviewer characteristics, including number, experience, and blinding of reviewers (similar to the study selection step). Although based on limited evidence from a small number of studies, the authors recommended use of two experienced and unblinded reviewers for data extraction. The experience of the reviewers was suggested to be especially important when extracting continuous outcomes (or quantitative) data. However, when the resources are limited, data extraction by one reviewer and a verification of the outcomes data by a second reviewer was recommended.
As for the methods involving use of technology, Robson et al. 14 identified limited evidence on the use of two monitors to improve the data extraction efficiency and computer‐assisted programs for graphical data extraction. However, use of Google Translate for data extraction in non‐English articles was not considered to be viable. 14 In the same review, Robson et al. 14 identified evidence supporting contacting authors for obtaining additional relevant data.
Two SRs examined the impact of blinding of reviewers for RoB assessments. 14 , 23 Morissette et al. 23 investigated the mean differences between the blinded and unblinded RoB assessment scores and found inconsistent differences among the included studies providing no definitive conclusions. Similar conclusions were drawn in a more recent review by Robson et al., 14 which included four studies on reviewer blinding for RoB assessment that completely overlapped with Morissette et al. 23
Use of experienced reviewers and provision of additional guidance for RoB assessment were examined by Robson et al. 14 The review concluded that providing intensive training and guidance on assessing studies reporting insufficient data to the reviewers improves RoB assessments. 14 Obtaining additional data related to quality assessment by contacting study authors was also found to help the RoB assessments, although based on limited evidence. When assessing the qualitative or mixed method reviews, Robson et al. 14 recommends the use of a structured RoB tool as opposed to an unstructured tool. No SRs were identified on data synthesis and CoE assessment and reporting steps.
4.1. summary of findings.
Nine SRs examining 24 unique methods used across five steps in the SR process were identified in this overview. The collective evidence supports some current traditional and modified SR practices, while challenging other approaches. However, the quality of the included reviews was assessed to be moderate at best and in the majority of the included SRs, evidence related to the evaluated methods was obtained from very limited numbers of primary studies. As such, the interpretations from these SRs should be made cautiously.
The evidence gathered from the included SRs corroborate a few current SR approaches. 5 For example, it is important to search multiple resources for identifying relevant trials (RCTs and/or CCTs). The resources must include a combination of electronic database searching, handsearching, and reference lists of retrieved articles. 5 However, no SRs have been identified that evaluated the impact of the number of electronic databases searched. A recent study by Halladay et al. 27 found that articles on therapeutic intervention, retrieved by searching databases other than PubMed (including Embase), contributed only a small amount of information to the MA and also had a minimal impact on the MA results. The authors concluded that when the resources are limited and when large number of studies are expected to be retrieved for the SR or MA, PubMed‐only search can yield reliable results. 27
Findings from the included SRs also reiterate some methodological modifications currently employed to “expedite” the SR process. 10 , 11 For example, excluding non‐English language trials and gray/unpublished trials from MA have been shown to have minimal or no impact on the results of MA. 24 , 26 However, the efficiency of these SR methods, in terms of time and the resources used, have not been evaluated in the included SRs. 24 , 26 Of the SRs included, only two have focused on the aspect of efficiency 14 , 25 ; O'Mara‐Eves et al. 25 report some evidence to support the use of text‐mining approaches for title and abstract screening in order to increase the rate of screening. Moreover, only one included SR 14 considered primary studies that evaluated reliability (inter‐ or intra‐reviewer consistency) and accuracy (validity when compared against a “gold standard” method) of the SR methods. This can be attributed to the limited number of primary studies that evaluated these outcomes when evaluating the SR methods. 14 Lack of outcome measures related to reliability, accuracy, and efficiency precludes making definitive recommendations on the use of these methods/modifications. Future research studies must focus on these outcomes.
Some evaluated methods may be relevant to multiple steps; for example, exclusions based on publication status (gray/unpublished literature) and language of publication (non‐English language studies) can be outlined in the a priori eligibility criteria or can be incorporated as search limits in the search strategy. SRs included in this overview focused on the effect of study exclusions on pooled treatment effect estimates or MA conclusions. Excluding studies from the search results, after conducting a comprehensive search, based on different eligibility criteria may yield different results when compared to the results obtained when limiting the search itself. 28 Further studies are required to examine this aspect.
Although we acknowledge the lack of standardized quality assessment tools for methodological study designs, we adhered to the Cochrane criteria for identifying SRs in this overview. This was done to ensure consistency in the quality of the included evidence. As a result, we excluded three reviews that did not provide any form of discussion on the quality of the included studies. The methods investigated in these reviews concern supplementary search, 29 data extraction, 12 and screening. 13 However, methods reported in two of these three reviews, by Mathes et al. 12 and Waffenschmidt et al., 13 have also been examined in the SR by Robson et al., 14 which was included in this overview; in most instances (with the exception of one study included in Mathes et al. 12 and Waffenschmidt et al. 13 each), the studies examined in these excluded reviews overlapped with those in the SR by Robson et al. 14
One of the key gaps in the knowledge observed in this overview was the dearth of SRs on the methods used in the data synthesis component of SR. Narrative and quantitative syntheses are the two most commonly used approaches for synthesizing data in evidence synthesis. 5 There are some published studies on the proposed indications and implications of these two approaches. 30 , 31 These studies found that both data synthesis methods produced comparable results and have their own advantages, suggesting that the choice of the method must be based on the purpose of the review. 31 With increasing number of “expedited” SR approaches (so called “rapid reviews”) avoiding MA, 10 , 11 further research studies are warranted in this area to determine the impact of the type of data synthesis on the results of the SR.
The findings of this overview highlight several areas of paucity in primary research and evidence synthesis on SR methods. First, no SRs were identified on methods used in two important components of the SR process, including data synthesis and CoE and reporting. As for the included SRs, a limited number of evaluation studies have been identified for several methods. This indicates that further research is required to corroborate many of the methods recommended in current SR guidelines. 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 Second, some SRs evaluated the impact of methods on the results of quantitative synthesis and MA conclusions. Future research studies must also focus on the interpretations of SR results. 28 , 32 Finally, most of the included SRs were conducted on specific topics related to the field of health care, limiting the generalizability of the findings to other areas. It is important that future research studies evaluating evidence syntheses broaden the objectives and include studies on different topics within the field of health care.
To our knowledge, this is the first overview summarizing current evidence from SRs and MA on different methodological approaches used in several fundamental steps in SR conduct. The overview methodology followed well established guidelines and strict criteria defined for the inclusion of SRs.
There are several limitations related to the nature of the included reviews. Evidence for most of the methods investigated in the included reviews was derived from a limited number of primary studies. Also, the majority of the included SRs may be considered outdated as they were published (or last updated) more than 5 years ago 33 ; only three of the nine SRs have been published in the last 5 years. 14 , 25 , 26 Therefore, important and recent evidence related to these topics may not have been included. Substantial numbers of included SRs were conducted in the field of health, which may limit the generalizability of the findings. Some method evaluations in the included SRs focused on quantitative analyses components and MA conclusions only. As such, the applicability of these findings to SR more broadly is still unclear. 28 Considering the methodological nature of our overview, limiting the inclusion of SRs according to the Cochrane criteria might have resulted in missing some relevant evidence from those reviews without a quality assessment component. 12 , 13 , 29 Although the included SRs performed some form of quality appraisal of the included studies, most of them did not use a standardized RoB tool, which may impact the confidence in their conclusions. Due to the type of outcome measures used for the method evaluations in the primary studies and the included SRs, some of the identified methods have not been validated against a reference standard.
Some limitations in the overview process must be noted. While our literature search was exhaustive covering five bibliographic databases and supplementary search of reference lists, no gray sources or other evidence resources were searched. Also, the search was primarily conducted in health databases, which might have resulted in missing SRs published in other fields. Moreover, only English language SRs were included for feasibility. As the literature search retrieved large number of citations (i.e., 41,556), the title and abstract screening was performed by a single reviewer, calibrated for consistency in the screening process by another reviewer, owing to time and resource limitations. These might have potentially resulted in some errors when retrieving and selecting relevant SRs. The SR methods were grouped based on key elements of each recommended SR step, as agreed by the authors. This categorization pertains to the identified set of methods and should be considered subjective.
This overview identified limited SR‐level evidence on various methodological approaches currently employed during five of the seven fundamental steps in the SR process. Limited evidence was also identified on some methodological modifications currently used to expedite the SR process. Overall, findings highlight the dearth of SRs on SR methodologies, warranting further work to confirm several current recommendations on conventional and expedited SR processes.
The authors declare no conflicts of interest.
APPENDIX A: Detailed search strategies
The first author is supported by a La Trobe University Full Fee Research Scholarship and a Graduate Research Scholarship.
Open Access Funding provided by La Trobe University.
Veginadu P, Calache H, Gussy M, Pandian A, Masood M. An overview of methodological approaches in systematic reviews . J Evid Based Med . 2022; 15 :39–54. 10.1111/jebm.12468 [ PMC free article ] [ PubMed ] [ CrossRef ] [ Google Scholar ]
"Systematic reviews aim to , thereby making the available evidence more accessible to decision makers" ( ). | "A scoping review... is a form of knowledge synthesis that related to a defined area or field by systematically searching, selecting, and synthesizing existing knowledge" ( ). | "Integrative reviews, thus, have the potential to build nursing science, informing research, practice, and policy initiatives. The integrative review method " ( ). |
Systematic reviews seek to: | Scoping reviews may seek to: | Integrative reviews seek to: |
"If the authors have a more addressing the , then a is likely the most valid approach" ( ). | "If authors single or , and are more interested in the of certain in papers or studies, and in the then a is the better choice" ( ). | If using to develop of the topic of interest by presenting the state of the science and an should be performed ( ). |
IMAGES
VIDEO
COMMENTS
Systematic Review vs Literature Review. The difference between literature review and systematic review comes back to the initial research question. Whereas the systematic review is very specific and focused, the standard literature review is much more general. The components of a literature review, for example, are similar to any other research ...
Both systematic and literature (or comprehensive) reviews are a gathering of available information on a certain subject. The difference comes in the depth of the research and the reporting of the conclusions. Let's take a look. A literature or comprehensive review brings together information on a topic in order to provide an overview of the ...
A systematic review follows explicit methodology to answer a well-defined research question by searching the literature comprehensively, evaluating the quantity and quality of research evidence rigorously, and analyzing the evidence to synthesize an answer to the research question. The evidence gathered in systematic reviews can be qualitative ...
The methodology involved in a literature review is less complicated and requires a lower degree of planning. For a systematic review, the planning is extensive and requires defining robust pre-specified protocols. It first starts with formulating the research question and scope of the research. The PICO's approach (population, intervention ...
In contrast, a systematic review is a specific type of literature review that follows a well-defined methodology to collect, evaluate, and synthesize evidence from multiple studies. While a literature review aims to provide a broad understanding of a research area, a systematic review focuses on answering a specific research question by ...
Rapid review. Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research. Completeness of searching determined by time constraints. Time-limited formal quality assessment. Typically narrative and tabular.
A systematic review, however, is a comprehensive literature review conducted to answer a specific research question. Authors of a systematic review aim to find, code, appraise, and synthesize all of the previous research on their question in an unbiased and well-documented manner.
Literature reviews establish the foundation of academic inquires. However, in the planning field, we lack rigorous systematic reviews. In this article, through a systematic search on the methodology of literature review, we categorize a typology of literature reviews, discuss steps in conducting a systematic literature review, and provide suggestions on how to enhance rigor in literature ...
A systematic review is a type of review that uses repeatable methods to find, select, and synthesize all available evidence. It answers a clearly formulated research question and explicitly states the methods used to arrive at the answer. Example: Systematic review. In 2008, Dr. Robert Boyle and his colleagues published a systematic review in ...
It's common to confuse systematic and literature reviews because both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic. Regardless of this commonality, both types of review vary significantly. The following table provides a detailed explanation as well as the differences between systematic and ...
Systematic Review vs. Literature Review. It is common to confuse systematic and literature reviews as both are used to provide a summary of the existent literature or research on a specific topic. Even with this common ground, both types vary significantly. Please review the following chart (and its corresponding poster linked below) for the ...
Abstract. This article aims to provide an overview of the structure, form and content of systematic reviews. It focuses in particular on the literature searching component, and covers systematic database searching techniques, searching for grey literature and the importance of librarian involvement in the search.
Topic selection and planning. In recent years, there has been an explosion in the number of systematic reviews conducted and published (Chalmers & Fox 2016, Fontelo & Liu 2018, Page et al 2015) - although a systematic review may be an inappropriate or unnecessary research methodology for answering many research questions.Systematic reviews can be inadvisable for a variety of reasons.
Abstract. A systematic review identifies and synthesizes all relevant studies that fit prespecified criteria to answer a research question. Systematic review methods can be used to answer many types of research questions. The type of question most relevant to trialists is the effects of treatments and is thus the focus of this chapter.
Acommon type of submission at any Journal is a review of the published information related to a topic.These are often returned to their authors without review, usually because they are literature reviews rather than systematic reviews. There is a big difference between the two (Table 1).Here, we summarise the differences, how they are used in academic work, and why a general literature review ...
This site explores different review methodologies such as, systematic, scoping, realist, narrative, state of the art, meta-ethnography, critical, and integrative reviews. The LITR-EX site has a health professions education focus, but the advice and information is widely applicable. Types of Reviews. Review the table to peruse review types and ...
Systematic literature reviews (SRs) are a way of synthesising scientific evidence to answer a particular research question in a way that is transparent and reproducible, while seeking to include all published evidence on the topic and appraising the quality of th is evidence. SRs have become a major methodology
A systematic review collects all possible studies related to a given topic and design, and reviews and analyzes their results [ 1 ]. During the systematic review process, the quality of studies is evaluated, and a statistical meta-analysis of the study results is conducted on the basis of their quality. A meta-analysis is a valid, objective ...
Systematic vs. Traditional Literature Reviews. Systematic Review: ... Not as comprehensive as a systematic review. The following resources provide information on the various types of review and how to conduct them: Article: A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies.
A systematic review is a particular type of evidence synthesis whose methodology seeks to maximize objectivity and transparency while minimizing bias in the identification, evaluation and use of information used to support an answer to a research question. Here below are some ways different authors have described the systematic review approach:
Table 1: Literature reviews vs systematic reviews. Literature review Methodological stage Systematic review Introduces context and current thinking, often without a specific question, is general and covers several aspects of a topic. Focus of review Uses a precise question to produce evidence to underpin a piece of research.
Abstract. Systematic reviews and purposive (nonsystematic) reviews serve valuable and complementary roles in synthesizing the results of original research studies. Systematic reviews use rigorous methods of article selection and data extraction to shed focused, deep light on a relatively narrow body of research, yet of necessity may exclude ...
1. INTRODUCTION. Evidence synthesis is a prerequisite for knowledge translation. 1 A well conducted systematic review (SR), often in conjunction with meta‐analyses (MA) when appropriate, is considered the "gold standard" of methods for synthesizing evidence related to a topic of interest. 2 The central strength of an SR is the transparency of the methods used to systematically search ...
Systematic vs. Scoping vs. Integrative Review. If you are wondering whether to perform a scoping review, integrative review, or systematic review, the following summaries can help you determine which review type is most appropriate for your research or clinical question. Grant and Booth (2009) and Whittemore et al (2014) describe additional ...
May include research findings.May or may not include comprehensive searching.No formal quality assessment.Typically narrative.Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. NARRATIVE REVIEWS Original type of literature review. Topic is usually very broad and short than a more structure, systematic literature reviews Does not include ...