Here’s how Subject Librarians can help with your systematic review:
– Help formulate your PICO question
– Assist with developing search strategies across appropriate databases
– Provide advice on how to document the search for the methods section of your review
– EndNote and Zotero support support
– Research data management
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions by 
Doing a literature review in health and social care by 
Doing a Systematic Review by 
Introduction to Meta-Analysis by 
An Introduction to Systematic Reviews by 
Systematic reviews in health care: Meta-analysis in context by Systematic reviews aim to find and evaluate all studies, published and unpublished, relevant to a research question, see this helpful video for an overview. They use systematic methods to minimise bias and they also use transparent methods that allow for replication and verification
Key characteristics
• a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies;
• an explicit, reproducible methodology;
• a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that meet the eligibility criteria;
• an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of risk of bias
• a systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies.
Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions. (2019). p.xxiii
A meta-analysis is an optional component of a systematic review. A meta analysis uses statistical methods to quantitatively evaluate pooled data from single studies.
If you are writing a systematic review, you need to decide whether it makes sense to include a meta analysis. This can be a difficult decision, see the books listed on this page for guidance.
Is a systematic review the right approach for the question you're asking?
Greenhalgh, T., Thorne, S., & Malterud, K. (2018). Time to challenge the spurious hierarchy of systematic over narrative reviews? European Journal of Clinical Investigation, 48(6), e12931. https://doi.org/10.1111/eci.12931
For a description of commonly used review types in Health Sciences:
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
The table below is adapted from this article.
|
|
Systematic review | Traditional literature review | ||
| Description |
Seeks to systematically search for, appraise and synthesise research evidence, often adhering to guidelines on the conduct of a review |
Generic term: published materials that provide an examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of comprehensiveness. May include research findings |
||
| Search |
Aims for exhaustive, comprehensive searching |
May or may not include comprehensive searching |
||
| Appraisal |
Quality assessment may determine inclusion/exclusion |
May or may not include quality assessment. Relies on author's judgment |
||
| Synthesis |
|
|
||
| Analysis |
What is known; recommendations for practice. What remains unknown; uncertainty around findings, recommendations for future research May include meta analysis |
Analysis may be chronological, conceptual, thematic, etc |
NHS Centre for Reviews and Dissemination (CRD). (2008). Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care.
