Traditional literature review / narrative review:
Source: Cochrane. Background to Systematic Reviews
EBM Pyramid and EBM Page Generator, copyright 2006 Trustees of Dartmouth College and Yale University. All Rights Reserved.
Produced by Jan Glover, David Izzo, Karen Odato and Lei Wang.
A systematic review is defined as “a review of the evidence on a clearly formulated question that uses systematic and explicit methods to identify, select and critically appraise relevant primary research, and to extract and analyze data from the studies that are included in the review.” The methods used must be reproducible and transparent.
Source: Undertaking Systematic Reviews of Research on Effectiveness. CRD’s Guidance for those Carrying Out or Commissioning Reviews. CRD Report Number 4 (2nd Edition). NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York. March 2001.
1. Gathering your team (Minimum of two reviewers with a third to serve as a tiebreaker)
2. Questioning (Define a narrow question, may use PICO) Is your review question a complex intervention? Learn more here.
3. Planning (Create a priori protocol (See Prisma-P extension), plan/test search strategy, register protocol (PROSPERO-see below)
4. Searching/Screening (Exhaustive, transparent & repeatable searching for evidence/selecting studies) Includes database, grey literature/clinical trial registry and handsearching of the literature.
See our Systematic Review Search Service for help conducting the search!
5. Managing (Transparency & duplicability of search methods/citations)
6. Synthesizing the evidence (appraising the evidence, interpreting results,
performing a qualitative and/or quantitative/meta-analysis (optional))
7. Drawing Conclusions & Writing/Publishing & Reporting
Moller AM, Myles PS. What makes a good systematic review and meta-analysis? BJA. 2016. 117(4):428-430.