Your liaison librarian can help with:
You can find out who your liaison librarian is and how to contact them in your subject specific library guide.
The library team delivers regular workshops on a variety of topics, including reference management, and you can find out more about these here:
A short video explaining what systematic reviews are, their purpose, and a quick explanation on how they can be done.
Another short video explaining what systematic reviews are, their purpose, and the stages involved.
A systematic review provides an unbiased overview of all available high quality primary research relating to a particular research question. The purpose of a systematic review (SR) is to identify, select, synthesize, and appraise the research in order to answer the research question.
SRs are often used in health, education, and social policy, where they are part of evidence based policy and practice. But this type of review is also used in other subject areas.
SRs follow a strict methodology and are characterised by the following:
Before deciding whether to undertake a SR, please consult the Types of Evidence Synthesis table below to see if there might be a more suitable evidence synthesis you could undertake instead, depending the aim of your research, the time you have, the size and the expertise of the team.
Adapted from: https://libguides.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/systematic-reviews/home and https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/c.php?g=662362&p=4681451#s-lg-box-14632012
Evidence synthesis refers to any method of identifying, selecting, and combining results from multiple studies. To help you decide which is the right review for your research question, use the review methodology decision tree from Cornell University.
Check review types and associated methodologies in the table below reproduced from Grant, M. J. and Booth, A. (2009), A typology of reviews: an analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information & Libraries Journal, 26: 91-108. doi:10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x
| Type | Description | Search | Appraisal | Synthesis | Analysis |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Critical Review | Aims to demonstrate writer has extensively researched literature and critically evaluated its quality. Goes beyond mere description to include degree of analysis and conceptual innovation. Typically results in hypothesis or model | Seeks to identify most significant items in the field | No formal quality assessment. Attempts to evaluate according to contribution | Typically, narrative, perhaps conceptual or chronological | Significant component: seeks to identify conceptual contribution to embody existing or derive new theory |
| Literature review | Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Typically, narrative | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. |
|
Mapping Review Systematic Map |
Map out and categorize existing literature from which to commission further reviews and/or primary research by identifying gaps in research literature | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints | No formal quality assessment | May be graphical and tabular | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. May identify need for primary or secondary research |
| Meta-analysis | Technique that statistically combines the results of quantitative studies to provide a more precise effect of the results | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching. May use funnel plot to assess completeness | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/ exclusion and/or sensitivity analyses | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | Numerical analysis of measures of effect assuming absence of heterogeneity |
|
Mixed Studies Review Mixed Methods Review |
Refers to any combination of methods where one significant component is a literature review (usually systematic). Within a review context it refers to a combination of review approaches for example combining quantitative with qualitative research or outcome with process studies | Requires either very sensitive search to retrieve all studies or separately conceived quantitative and qualitative strategies | Requires either a generic appraisal instrument or separate appraisal processes with corresponding checklists | Typically, both components will be presented as narrative and in tables. May also employ graphical means of integrating quantitative and qualitative studies | Analysis may characterise both literatures and look for correlations between characteristics or use gap analysis to identify aspects absent in one literature but missing in the other |
| Overview | Generic term: summary of the [medical] literature that attempts to survey the literature and describe its characteristics | May or may not include comprehensive searching (depends whether systematic overview or not) | May or may not include quality assessment (depends whether systematic overview or not) | Synthesis depends on whether systematic or not. Typically narrative but may include tabular features | Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc. |
|
Qualitative Systematic Review Qualitative Evidence Synthesis |
Method for integrating or comparing the findings from qualitative studies. It looks for ‘themes’ or ‘constructs’ that lie in or across individual qualitative studies | May employ selective or purposive sampling | Quality assessment typically used to mediate messages not for inclusion/exclusion | Qualitative, narrative synthesis | Thematic analysis, may include conceptual models |
| Rapid Review | Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research | Completeness of searching determined by time constraints | Time-limited formal quality assessment | Typically, narrative and tabular | Quantities of literature and overall quality/direction of effect of literature |
| Scoping Review | Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research) | Completeness of searching determined by time/scope constraints. May include research in progress | No formal quality assessment | Typically, tabular with some narrative commentary | Characterizes quantity and quality of literature, perhaps by study design and other key features. Attempts to specify a viable review |
| State of the Art Review | Tend to address more current matters in contrast to other combined retrospective and current approaches. May offer new perspectives | Aims for comprehensive searching of current literature | No formal quality assessment | Typically, narrative, may have tabular accompaniment | Current state of knowledge and priorities for future investigation and research |
| Systematic Review | Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesis research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion | Typically, narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations |
| Systematic Search and Review | Combines strengths of critical review with a comprehensive search process. Typically addresses broad questions to produce ‘best evidence synthesis’ | Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Minimal narrative, tabular summary of studies | What is known; recommendations for practice. Limitations |
| Systematised Review | Attempt to include elements of systematic review process while stopping short of systematic review. Typically conducted as postgraduate student assignment | May or may not include comprehensive searching | May or may not include quality assessment | Typically, narrative with tabular accompaniment | What is known; uncertainty around findings; limitations of methodology |
| Umbrella Review | Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results | Identification of component reviews, but no search for primary studies | Quality assessment of studies within component reviews and/or of reviews themselves | Graphical and tabular with narrative commentary | What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; recommendations for future research |
|
|
Systematic Review |
Systematic Literature Review |
Scoping Review |
Literature Review |
|
Description |
Brings together all available studies on a research question in order to answer it. |
A subjective summary of the literature on a topic. |
Initial assessment of available literature on a topic, and its nature. Often includes research still in progress. |
Generic term. A review of published material. Comprehensiveness varies. |
|
Search |
Extensive, including unpublished and grey literature. Comprehensive search strategy fully accounted for in appendices. |
Comprehensive search of published literature, with a detailed search strategy. |
Limits determined by the scope and time restraints. |
May or may not be comprehensive. |
|
Appraisal |
A detailed protocol, usually using PICO. |
May or may not include element of quality assessment. |
No formal assessment of quality. |
May or may not include quality assessment. |
|
Synthesis and Analysis |
Resources evaluated against strict criteria, often by more than one researcher. |
Often done by a single researcher, thus open to bias. |
Often in tabular format with added comments. |
The type of analysis can be chronological/ conceptual/ thematic etc |
Adapted from https://guides.mclibrary.duke.edu/sysreview/types and https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/systematic-review
The steps of a Systematic Review
These are the 7 stages of a systematic review. You can learn more about each one by going to the relevant tab at the top of this guide.
1. Formulate your question and develop your protocol: Your first step is to devise a focused, clear question which your review will address. You then need to develop a protocol which outlines the study methodology.
2. Decide where to search and develop a search strategy: Remember that you need to search for both published and unpublished studies.
3. Run and record your searches: You need to be systematic at this stage: have a clear search strategy, record the steps you take and the results you get.
4. Decide on how to manage your search results: You may need to learn how to use a reference management system such as EndNote or Mendeley.
5. Evaluate the search results: In this stage, you evaluate the articles that you have retrieved against the inclusion and exclusion criteria established in your protocol.
6. Summarise the evidence: This is often called synthesising, and can include statistical methods.
7. Write up your research: Report on your findings using the PRISMA checklist and flowchart.
Adapted from https://libguides.reading.ac.uk/c.php?g=662362&p=4681451#s-lg-box-14632012 and https://libguides.bodleian.ox.ac.uk/systematic-reviews/home
