|
Systematic Review |
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
---|---|
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
Systematic Review |
Narrative Review |
|
---|---|---|
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
Qualitatively summarizes evidence on a topic using informal or subjective methods to collect and interpret studies. |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Provide a summary/overview of a topic. |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Can be a general topic or a specific question. |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
Introduction. |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1 or more. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Weeks to months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. |
Understanding of topic. |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
Provides a selective summary of literature on a topic. |
References
Kysh, L. (2013). Difference between a systematic review and a literature review (Version 1). figshare. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364
Systematic Review |
Scoping Review |
|
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
A Scoping review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent methodologies to map or chart the literature related to a broader research question. The protocol may be developed iteratively. |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Provide a summary/overview of a topic. |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Can be a general topic or a specific question. |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. Synthesis of records located. May be charted. |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1 or more. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. Supplementary searching is recommended. |
Understanding of topic. Supplementary searching is recommended. |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
Provides a summary of literature on a topic, can identify gaps in research, clarify concepts, identify the extent and characteristics of the research on a topic |
References
Peters, M. D. J., Godfrey, C., McInerney, P., Munn, Z., Tricco, A. C., & Khalil, H. (2020). Chapter 11: Scoping reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
Systematic Review |
Rapid Review |
|
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
A rapid review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions. The scope of the review is limited or streamlined so the outcomes are achieved in a shorter time-frame. |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. The intervention considered or outcomes included may be limited. May include date and language restrictions. |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1-2 |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
1 week-6 months |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. Supplementary searching is recommended. |
Thorough knowledge of topic. Limit or exclude supplementary searching |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
Provides "timely evidence for decision-making purposes including to address urgent and emergent health issues and questions deemed to be of high priority". |
References
Garritty, C., Gartlehner, G., Kamel, C., King, V. J., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Stevens, A., Hamel, C., & Affengruber, L. (2020). Cochrane rapid reviews: Interim guidance from the Cochrane Rapid Reviews Methods Group. http://methods.cochrane.org/sites/methods.cochrane.org.rapidreviews/files/uploads/cochrane_rr_-_guidance-23mar2020-final.pdf
Systematic Review |
Umbrella Review |
|
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
An Umbrella review is a review of previously published systematic reviews or meta-analyses and represent one of the highest levels of evidence. |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Provide a summary of available evidence related to a particular question. |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. Systematic & replicable search strategy.
|
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1 or more. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Generally faster than systematic reviews. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. Systematic searching of at least 3 relevant databases. Supplementary searching is recommended. |
Thorough knowledge of topic. Supplementary searching is recommended. |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
Highlight the evidence base around a particular topic, addressing what is consistent and what is not. |
References
Aromataris, E., Fernandez, R., Godfrey, C., Holly, C., Khalil, H., & Tungpunkom, P. (2020). Chapter 10: Umbrella reviews. In E. Aromataris & Z. Munn (Eds.). JBI manual for evidence synthesis. JBI. https://synthesismanual.jbi.global
Fusar-Poli, P., & Radua, J. (2018). Ten simple rules for conducting umbrella reviews. Evidence-Based Mental Health, 21, 95-100. http://doi.org/10.1136/ebmental-2018-300014
Systematic Review |
Integrative Review |
|
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
"Critical analysis of empirical, methodological, or theoretical literature, which draws attention to future research needs" (Toronto & Remington, 2020). |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
To provide a comprehensive investigation of the subject and concepts. |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Review questions are broad and well defined. |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
Pre-specified eligibility criteria. Systematic & transparent search strategy. Analysis and synthesis. Generation of a conceptual level of knowledge. |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1 or more. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
6-12 months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. Supplementary searching is recommended. |
Systematic searching of multiple databases. Supplementary searching is recommended. |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
Provides an exploration and analysis of the current available research literature across different fields and perspectives, identifying directions for possible future research. |
References
Cronin, M. A., & George, E. (2020). The why and how of the integrative Review. Organizational Research Methods. https://doi.org/10.1177/1094428120935507
Oermann, M. H., & Knafl, K. A. (2021). Strategies for completing a successful integrative review. Nurse Author & Editor, 31(3-4), 65-68. https://doi.org/10.1111/nae2.30
Toronto, C. E., & Remington, R. (Eds.). (2020). A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review. Springer International Publishing.
Systematic Review |
Realist Review |
|
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
A realist review is a theory driven academic research paper using transparent methodologies to explore the how and why an intervention or program works and in which context. Causation is of particular interest, especially how that might be shaped by a social context (Wong, 2013). |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
To determine what works for whom under what circumstances, how and why, "to articulate underlying programme theories and then to interrogate the existing evidence to find out whether and where these theories are pertinent and productive" (Rycroft-Malone, 2012). |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Clearly defined question(s) |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
Planned protocol. Iterative searches. Steps of the search recorded. Supplementary search strategies, especially citation tracking, backwards and forward have been shown to be very useful. Appraisal of documents. Analysis and synthesis with a focus on theory and theory building (Wong, 2013). Interpretation and presentation of results. Reference list. |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
2 or more. |
At least 2 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. Supplementary searching is recommended. |
Expert knowledge of the area. Systematic searching of at least 3 relevant databases. Supplementary searching is essential. Analysis and synthesis of the document located, identifying implications for policy and practice. |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
"Attempts to provide policy makers with a transferable theory that suggests a certain program is more or less likely to work in certain respects, for particular subjects, in specific kinds of situations" (Saul, Willis & Best, 2013). |
References
Rycroft-Malone, J., McCormack, B., Hutchinson, A. M., DeCorby, K., Bucknall, T. K., Kent, B., Schultz, A., Snelgrove-Clarke, E., Stetler, C. B., Titler, M., Wallin, L., & Wilson, V. (2012). Realist synthesis: Illustrating the method for implementation research. Implementation Science, 7(1), 33. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-7-33
Saul, J. E., Willis, C. D., Bitz, J., & Best, A. (2013). A time-responsive tool for informing policy making: Rapid realist review. Implementation Science, 8(1), 103. https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-8-103
Wong, G., Greenhalgh, T., Westhorp, G., Buckingham, J., & Pawson, R. (2013). RAMESES publication standards: Realist syntheses. BMC Medicine, 11(1), 21. https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-11-21
Wong, G., Westhorp, G., Manzano, A., Greenhalgh, J., Jagosh, J., & Greenhalgh, T. (2016). RAMESES II reporting standards for realist evaluations. BMC Medicine, 14(1), 96. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12916-016-0643-1
Systematic Review |
Qualitative Synthesis |
|
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
A qualitative synthesis is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions from a "respondents perspective" (Lachal, 2017). |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Analyze and interpret responses in multiple papers to identify themes and connections and developing new conceptual knowledges. |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Broad and clearly defined question. |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
2 or more. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. Supplementary searching is recommended. |
Thorough knowledge of topic. Synthesis of resources. |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
Draws connections and comparisons between papers to create new knowledges and develop theory. |
References
Lachal, J., Revah-Levy, A., Orri, M., & Moro, M. R. (2017). Metasynthesis: An original method to synthesize qualitative literature in psychiatry [Methods]. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2017.00269
Boeije, H. R., van Wesel, F., & Alisic, E. (2011). Making a difference: Towards a method for weighing the evidence in a qualitative synthesis. Journal of Evaluation in Clinical Practice, 17(4), 657-663. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1365-2753.2011.01674.x
Seers, K. (2012). What is a qualitative synthesis? Evidence Based Nursing, 15(4), 101. https://doi.org/10.1136/ebnurs-2012-100977
|
Systematic Review |
Systematised Review |
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
Includes elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment. (Grant & Booth, 2009) |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Answer a well-defined research question |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Can be a general topic or a specific question. |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
Introduction. Methods Results Discussion Strengths and limitations Conclusion Declaration of Interest Reference List |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1 or more. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Weeks to months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. |
What is known about the topic. May or may not include quality assessment. May or may not include comprehensive searching. |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
Provides a summary of literature on a topic. |
|
Systematic Review |
Mixed Methods Review |
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
Any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a comprehensive synthesis of two or more types of data (qualitative or quantitative) and then aggregated into a final synthesis. (Grant & Booth, 2009) Also referred to as Mixed methods synthesis, Mixed studies |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
The goal of a mixed methods review is to expand and strengthen a study’s conclusions |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Identify research gaps and determine the effects and appropriateness of interventions. To answer multiple questions in one review |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria. |
Descriptive title Article’s ‘lead’ to attract the curiosity of readers Research question/s Essay summary Implications Findings Methods Bibliography |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1 or more. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
12 + months |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. |
Exhaustive searching is required. The quality assurance for this type of review includes the use of a QA tool or checklist |
|
Systematic Review |
Critical Review |
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
A critical review aims to demonstrate that the writer has extensively researched the literature and critically evaluated its quality. It goes beyond mere description of identified articles and includes a degree of analysis and conceptual innovation" and "an effective critical review presents, analyses and synthesizes material from diverse sources". "There is no formal requirement to present methods of the search, synthesis and analysis explicitly" (Grant & Booth 2009). |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Demonstrate that the author has undertaken an exhaustive search to find all relevant articles within a research area and the quality of articles. |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Can be a general topic or a specific question. |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria.Systematic & replicable search strategy.
|
Introduction Body Conclusion
Questions to consider: Objectives: What is the aim of the article Theory: Theoretical framework or an important theoretical assumption Concepts: Clearly define key concepts Argument: What is the central argument or specific hypothesis Method Evidence: Is evidence provided? How adequate is it? Values: Clear or implicit value Literature: How does your article add to the wider literature base? Does it add any new knowledge? Conclusion: A brief overall assessment
|
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1 or more. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Weeks to months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. |
Requires an exhaustive search to find all the evidence |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
Evaluate the strengths and weaknesses of an article’s ideas and content. |
|
Systematic Review |
State-of-the-art Reviews |
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
State-of-the-art reviews provide a time-based overview of the current state of knowledge within a research field and recommend direction for future research. It will often highlight new ideas or gaps in the research. No official quality assessment. |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
To summarise the current knowledge and provide priorities for future research |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Generate an interpretation of the literature informed by the expertise of the review team |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria.Systematic & replicable search strategy.
|
Providing a comprehensive discussion on a specific topic and summarise the current knowledge and advancements in that field |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1 or more. |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Weeks to months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. |
Requires a comprehensive search to find current evidence that addresses the purpose of the review |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high-quality evidence. |
Gathering current evidence in a specific research area and recommending direction for future research |
|
Systematic Review |
Review of Reviews|Overview |
Definition |
A systematic review is a protocol-driven academic research paper using transparent, reproducible methodologies to look for answers to specific research questions |
Summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics. (Grant & Booth, 2009) Pollock M, Fernandes RM, Becker LA, Pieper D, Hartling L. Chapter V: Overviews of Reviews. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.4 (updated August 2023). Cochrane, 2023. Available from: https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current/chapter-v |
Goals |
Answer a focused clinical question. Eliminates bias. |
Collating evidence to demonstrate conclusive evidence for clinical decision-making. |
Question |
Clearly defined & answerable clinical question. |
Evidence is used in clinical decision-making |
Components |
Registered protocol with pre-specified eligibility criteria.Systematic & replicable search strategy.
|
Introduction Methods Results Discussion Conclusion References |
No. of Authors |
At least 3 for a formal systematic review to eliminate bias. |
1 or more |
Timeline |
6 to 12 months, average 12 months. |
Weeks to months. |
Requirements |
Thorough knowledge of topic. |
This type of review requires a comprehensive search of the literature in a given research area |
Value |
Connects practicing clinicians to high quality evidence. |
An Overview or Review of Reviews, collates multiple reviews to demonstrate conclusive evidence for clinical decision-making |
See the below articles for a list of other types of reviews.
Barry, E.S., Merkebu, J. & Varpio, L. (2022). State-of-the-art literature review methodology: A six-step approach for knowledge synthesis. Perspect Med Educ 11, 281–288. https://doi.org/10.1007/s40037-022-00725-9
Grant, M. J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91-108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
Sutton, A., Clowes, M., Preston, L., & Booth, A. (2019). Meeting the review family: Exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 36(3), 202-222. https://doi.org/10.1111/hir.12276
© Western Sydney University, unless otherwise attributed.
Library guide created by Western Sydney University Library staff is licenced under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International (CC BY)