Systematic reviews should be done:
Before beginning a systematic review, researchers should address these questions:
Source: Reproduced with gratitude from the University of Michigan's Systematic Review research guide
Search the following databases in your subject area to find if a recent systematic review has already been done.
A good strategy is to find one on a closely related topic and build on its search strategy. Note: This is not a comprehensive list and you may need to search in other databases in your field.
Titles and main points of systematic reviews registered with the international Joanna Briggs Institute.
Locates Systematic Reviews in the Medline database
Epistemonikos connects systematic reviews and their included studies, and thus allows clustering of systematic reviews based on the primary studies they have in common.
Full-text access to regularly updated systematic reviews by the Cochrane Collaboration. Includes completed systematic reviews and review protocols in development.
Systematic reviews related to the environment or conservation.
For information on conducting systematic reviews in the social sciences, consult the Campbell Collaboration.
Systematic reviews focused on health promotion, public health, education and social policy, and related areas.
Use these tools to decide if you should complete a systematic review or another form of evidence synthesis.
This table highlights key differences between systematic reviews and literature reviews (sometimes called narrative reviews):
Category | Systematic Review | Literature Review |
---|---|---|
Purpose |
To find the answer to a specific research question. This question is developed and may be registered before the systematic review begins. |
Need not answer a question. Answers the question “What do we know about _?” Critical; synthesis of theories and approaches to a problem or topic. Conceptual categories |
Methodology | As prescribed precisely by PRISMA. Documentation of methodology must be included in the review. | Varies by discipline and topic |
Criteria for evidence | Pre-defined and confirmed by 2+ raters. | Empirical, qualitative evidence; may include discussion of and analysis of theoretical frameworks, etc. Criteria for inclusion may not be stated. |
Type of publications retrieved from search | Primary research, e.g. peer-reviewed journal articles, clinical trials, conference proceedings. | Varies by discipline and topic but may include primary sources (e.g. archival materials, datasets), as well as monographs, journal articles and proceedings. |
Database(s) search terms and strategies | Documented, and forms part of most systematic reviews, typically as an appendix; aim is replicability | Documentation of database search(es) not typically required in completed review. |
Source: Reproduced with gratitude from University of British Columbia Systematic and Scoping Reviews Search Methodology
Time, Teamwork, Tools
Month |
Activity |
1 - 2 |
Preparation of protocol |
3 - 8 |
Searches for published & unpublished studies |
2 - 3 |
Pilot test of eligibility criteria |
3 - 8 |
Inclusion assessments |
3 |
Pilot test of 'Risk of bias' assessment |
3 - 10 |
Validity assessments |
3 |
Pilot test of data collection |
3 - 10 |
Data collection |
3 - 10 |
Data entry |
5 - 11 |
Follow up of missing information |
8 - 10 |
Analysis |
1 - 11 |
Preparation of review report |
12 - |
Keeping the review up to date |
Higgins, J., & Thomas, J. (2019). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current
Institute of Medicine. (2011). Finding what works in health care: standards for systematic reviews. Eden, J. Levit, L., Berg, A., & Morton, S. (Eds.) Washington, D.C.: National Academies Press.