Systematic Reviews

Not every research question requires systematic review methodology.

Be sure to select the review type that matches the purpose and scope of your project.

All reviews should be methodical - conducted in a careful and deliberate manner.  

Questions to ask yourself:

• What is the purpose of this review? 

• What is the research question?

• How long do I have to complete it?

• Am I doing it alone or part of a team?

• How much of the literature do I need to capture?

• Do my literature search and methods need  to be transparent and replicable?

Tool:

Right Review - a tool providing guidance and supporting material on methods for conduct and reporting of knowledge synthesis.

Reviews of increasing complexity, from narrative reviews to systematic reviews... with complexity comes an increase in time & resources needed. -from Scoping Studies. Health Libraries Portal . HLWIKI International

Narrative Reviews or Literature Reviews

• Useful in tracing concept development
• Scope can be broad or focused
• Methodology is not standardized 
• Can be conducted by an individual or a team
• Journal requirements vary -  check the journal's instruction for authors

Making literature reviews more reliable through application of lessons from systematic reviews. Haddaway NR, Woodcock P, Macura B, Collins A. Conserv Biol. 2015;29(6):1596-605. Epub 20150601. doi: 10.1111/cobi.12541. PubMed PMID: 26032263.

SANRA-a scale for the quality assessment of narrative review articles. Baethge C, Goldbeck-Wood S, Mertens S.  Res Integr Peer Rev. 2019;4:5. Epub 20190326. doi: 10.1186/s41073-019-0064-8. PubMed PMID: 30962953; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC643487

Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? Greenhalgh T, Thorne S, Malterud K.  Eur J Clin Invest. 2018;48(6):e12931. Epub 2018/03/27. doi: 10.1111/eci.12931. PubMed PMID: 29578574; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC6001568.

Evidence Reviews listed below which utilize explicit methodologies, reduce bias, increase transparency & reproducibility and a team.

Systematic Reviews

• Addresses a specific question
• Uses specified methodology to reduce bias
• Requires a team and time commitment
• May include meta-analysis, dependent upon heterogeneity

Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. Munn Z, Peters MDJ, Stern C, Tufanaru C, McArthur A, Aromataris E.  BMC Med Res Methodol. Nov 19 2018;18(1):143. doi:10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x

What kind of systematic review should I conduct? A proposed typology and guidance for systematic reviewers in the medical and health sciences. Munn, Z., Stern, C., Aromataris, E. et al.  BMC Med Res Methodol 18, 5 (2018). doi:10.1186/s12874-017-0468-4  

Conducting a systematic review: finding the evidence. Lodge, M. (2011). J Evid Based Med, 4(2), 135-139. doi: 10.1111/j.1756-5391.2011.01130.x PubMed PMID: 23672704

Reviews of Reviews (Umbrella)

• Systematic review using only systematic reviews as subjects
• Synthesizes systematic reviews of same topic
• Assesses scope and quality of individual systematic reviews
• May include meta-analysis, dependent upon heterogeneity

Conducting umbrella reviews. Belbasis L, Bellou V, Ioannidis JPA.  BMJ Medicine. 2022;1(1). doi: 10.1136/bmjmed-2021-000071. PubMed PMID: 36936579

Methodology in conducting a systematic review of systematic reviews of healthcare interventions. Smith V, Devane D, Begley CM, Clarke M. BMC Med Res Methodol. 2011 Feb 3;11(1):15. doi: 10.1186/1471-2288-11-15.

Scoping Reviews

• Looks at broad research question
• Creates broad literature map to find gaps
• Requires a team and time
• Uses qualitative analysis

What are scoping reviews? Providing a formal definition of scoping reviews as a type of evidence synthesis. Munn Z, Pollock D, Khalil H, Alexander L, McLnerney P, Godfrey CM, et al.  JBI Evid Synth. 2022;20(4):950-2. Epub 20220401. doi: 10.11124/JBIES-21-00483. PubMed PMID: 35249995.

Conducting high quality scoping reviews-challenges and solutions. Khalil H, Peters MD, Tricco AC, Pollock D, Alexander L, McInerney P, et al.  J Clin Epidemiol. 2020. Epub 2020/10/31. doi: 10.1016/j.jclinepi.2020.10.009. PubMed PMID: 33122034

Realist Reviews

• Focuses on context and process
• Uses an iterative protocol
• Useful for complex policy interventions     

Realist synthesis: illustrating the method for implementation research. Rycroft-Malone J, McCormack B, Hutchinson AM, DeCorby K, Bucknall TK, Kent B, Schultz A, Snelgrove-Clarke E, Stetler CB, Titler M, Wallin L, Wilson V. Implement Sci.2012 Apr 19;7:33. doi: 10.1186/1748-5908-7-33.

Rapid Reviews

• Used on emerging issues needing quick answers
• Uses systematic review methods
• Time constraints (often ≤3 months)

Evidence summaries: the evolution of a rapid review approach. Khangura S, Konnyu K, Cushman R, Grimshaw J, Moher D. Syst Rev. 2012 Feb 10;1:10. doi:10.1186/2046-4053-1-10.

Moher D, Stewart L, Shekelle P. All in the Family: systematic reviews, rapid reviews, scoping reviews, realist reviews, and more. Syst Rev. 2015 Dec 22;4:183.doi: 10.1186/s13643-015-0163-7. PubMed PMID: 26693720; PubMed Central PMCID: PMC4688988.

Grant MJ, Booth A. A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Info Libr J. 2009 Jun;26(2):91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x. PubMed PMID: 1949148

Fourteen review types and associated methodologies were compared and contrasted using  the SALSA (Search, AppraisaL, Synthesis and Analysis) framework.

Rethlefsen ML, Murad MH, Livingston EH. Engaging Medical Librarians to Improve the Quality of Review Articles. JAMA. 2014 Sep 10;312(10):999-1000. PubMed PMID: 25203078