'In basic terms, a systematic review is a protocol-driven, comprehensive literature review, usually designed to answer a specific clinical question' (Mayo Clinic Libraries)
For a more detailed definition see Clarifying differences between review designs and methods by David Gough, James Thomas & Sandy Oliver
Also see our Systematic Reviews page and the Systematic Review Guide by Curtin University Library.
Before beginning a Systematic Review ask yourself:
If you answered No to any of the first 4 questions, a traditional literature review will be more appropriate.
If you answered No to the last question, a meta-analysis will not be an appropriate methodolgy for your review.
For a quick alternative to a systematic review see information about TRIP Rapid Reviews.
|
Criteria |
Systematic Reviews |
Literature Reviews |
| Question |
Focused on a single question (often PICO based) |
Not necessarily focused on a single question - may describe an overview |
| Protocol |
A peer reviewed protocol or plan is included |
No protocol included |
| Background |
Summarises the available literature |
Summarises the available literature |
| Objectives |
Clear objectives are identified |
Objectives may or may not be identified |
| Inclusion/Exclusion Criteria |
Criteria stated before the review is conducted |
Criteria not stated |
| Search Strategy |
Comprehensive and systematic (stated in the document) |
Strategy not explicitly stated (not always comprehensive or systematic) |
| Process of Selecting Articles |
Usually clear and explicit |
Not described in a literature review |
| Process of Evaluating Articles |
Comprehensive evaluation of study quality |
Evaluation of study quality may or may not be included |
| Process of Extracting Information |
Usually clear and specific |
Not clear or explicit |
| Results & Data Synthesis |
Clear summaries of studies based on high quality evidence |
Summary based on studies where the quality of the articles may not be specified. May also be influenced by the reviewer's therories, needs and beliefs. |
| Discussion |
Written by an expert or group of experts with a detailed and well grounded knowledge of the issues |
Written by an expert or group of experts with a detailed and well grounded knowledge of the issues |
(from Curtin University Library's Systematic Review guide)
An easy to read introduction for students and researchers when undertaking scoping or systematic reviews. The book leads readers through the stages of conducting a review, such as planning, searching, screening, appraising, synthesising, reporting and publishing. Includes H5P activities and is based on current best practices of methodology and reporting.
The Institute of Medicine issued Standards for Systematic Review Teams in 2010, including a set of standards specifically about conducting searches. The first standard for searching (3.1.1) states that systematic review teams should work with a librarian to plan the search strategy.