Skip to main content
It looks like you're using Internet Explorer 11 or older. This website works best with modern browsers such as the latest versions of Chrome, Firefox, Safari, and Edge. If you continue with this browser, you may see unexpected results.

Systematic Reviews

Systematic review services and guidance at Galter Library

What is a systematic review?

“A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias, in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making.” 

- About Cochrane Reviews, Cochrane Library

Review Types

Review Type

Typical Use

Important Notes

Systematic Review

  • Ask a specific research question
  • Use pre-specified inclusion criteria
  • Appraise and synthesize the evidence
  • Extended time commitment
  • Should follow a prepared research protocol

Scoping Review

  • Ask a broader question
  • Identify gaps
  • Understand the size/reach of a topic
  • Extended time commitment
  • Could involve multiple searches

 

Mapping Review

  • Categorize existing knowledge
  • Identify gaps in literature
  • Seeks to understand connections/links
  • Does not synthesize results/findings (categorizes)

Literature/Narrative Review

  • Summarize or comment on the literature
  • Varying levels of comprehensiveness

Umbrella Review

  • Review multiple high-level reviews
  • Focus on competing interventions
  • Must include data synthesis
  • Follows systematic review methods (only includes SRs & meta analyses)

Systematized Review

  • Uses elements of the systematic review process
  • When resources are limited
  • Used as a graduate assignment
  • May be limited in comprehensiveness
  • Limited consideration of methodology

Critical Review

  • Extensive research and critical evaluation of a topic
  • Looks for significant contributions
  • Typically has a narrative output
  • Subjective output
  • Launching point for further investigation

Chart adapted from: 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.

Standards & Guidance

Here are some standards and additional research synthesis methods papers to get you started:

Chandler, J., Churchill, R., Higgins, J., Lasserson, T., & Tovey, D. (2013). Methodological standards for the conduct of new Cochrane Intervention Reviews, Version 2.3. Available from http://www.editorial-unit.cochrane.org/mecir.

European Network for Health Technology Assessment. (2015) Guideline: Process of information retrieval for systematic reviews and health technology assessments on clinical effectiveness. JUL 2015. Available from: http://www.eunethta.eu/sites/5026.fedimbo.belgium.be/files/2015-07-13_Guideline_Information_Retrieval_final.pdf.

Higgins, J., Green, S., & (editors). (2011). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0  [updated March 2011]. J. Higgins & S. Green (Eds.), Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org/.  

IOM (Institute of Medicine). (2011). Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Available from: http://www.iom.edu/Reports/2011/Finding-What-Works-in-Health-Care-Standards-for-systematic-Reviews.aspx

Liberati, A., Altman, D. G., Tetzlaff, J., Mulrow, C., Gotzsche, P. C., Ioannidis, J. P., . . . Moher, D. (2009). The PRISMA statement for reporting systematic reviews and meta-analyses of studies that evaluate health care interventions: explanation and elaboration. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000100. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100. Available from: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000100

Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., Altman, D. G., & Prisma Group. (2009). Preferred reporting items for systematic reviews and meta-analyses: the PRISMA statement. PLoS Medicine, 6(7), e1000097. doi: 10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097. Available from: http://www.plosmedicine.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pmed.1000097

Moher D., Shamseer L., Clarke M., Ghersi D., Liberati A., Petticrew M., . . . PRISMA-P Group (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015 statement. Systematic Reviews, 4(1), doi:10.1186/2046-4053-4-1. Availalble from: http://systematicreviewsjournal.biomedcentral.com/articles/10.1186/2046-4053-4-1.  

Rader, T., Mann, M., Stansfield, C., Cooper, C., & Sampson, M. (2013). Methods for documenting systematic review searches: a discussion of common issues. Research Synthesis Methods, Article first published online: 8 OCT 2013. doi: 10.1002/jrsm.1097. Available from: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/jrsm.1097/abstract.

Rethlefsen, M. L., Murad, M., & Livingston, E. H. (2014). Engaging medical librarians to improve the quality of review articles. JAMA, 312(10), 999-1000. doi: 10.1001/jama.2014.9263. Availalble from: http://jama.jamanetwork.com/article.aspx?articleid=1902238

Shamseer, L., Moher, D., Clarke, M., Ghersi, D., Liberati, A. D., Petticrew, M., . . . PRISMA-P Group. (2015). Preferred reporting items for systematic review and meta-analysis protocols (PRISMA-P) 2015: elaboration and explanation. BMJ, 349, g7647. doi: 10.1136/bmj.g7647. Available from: http://www.bmj.com/content/349/bmj.g7647.long.

Umscheid, C. A. (2013). A Primer on Performing Systematic Reviews and Meta-analyses. Clinical Infectious Diseases, 57(5), 725-734. doi: 10.1093/cid/cit333. Available from: http://cid.oxfordjournals.org/content/57/5/725.long