A systematic review is a structured and comprehensive analysis of existing research on a specific topic, where multiple scientific studies are collected, evaluated, and synthesized to answer a clearly defined research question.
The aim is to minimize bias and provide a more accurate and reliable conclusion than individual studies.
"A systematic review attempts to collect relevant evidence that fits pre-specified criteria to answer a specific research question". Source: Center for Evidence Synthesis in Health: https://www.brown.edu/public-health/cesh/home
|
Type |
Aim |
Search |
Quality Appraisal |
Evidence Synthesis |
Analysis |
|
Systematic Review |
To address specific research questions through a structured and pre-defined method. |
Exhaustive search aiming for comprehensive coverage of relevant studies. |
Rigorous and explicit criteria used to assess the quality of included studies. |
Integrates findings from multiple studies using a systematic method. |
Quantitative (meta-analysis) or qualitative synthesis. |
|
Meta-analysis |
To statistically combine results from multiple quantitative studies to determine overall effect size. |
Exhaustive search focusing on studies with quantitative data. |
Rigorous quality appraisal to ensure the validity and reliability of included studies. |
Combines statistical results from different studies to produce a summary effect size. |
Statistical analysis, effect size calculation. |
|
Comparative Effectiveness Review |
To compare the benefits and harms of different interventions to inform healthcare decisions. |
Comprehensive search of studies comparing various interventions. |
Rigorous appraisal to ensure high-quality, comparable studies are included. |
Synthesises evidence to compare the effectiveness of interventions. |
Comparative analysis, meta-analysis. |
|
Diagnostic Systematic Review |
To evaluate the accuracy and effectiveness of diagnostic tests. |
Extensive search for studies on diagnostic tests and their outcomes. |
Rigorous assessment of study quality, focusing on diagnostic accuracy. |
Integrates findings to determine the effectiveness and accuracy of diagnostic tests. |
Diagnostic accuracy meta-analysis. |
|
Network Meta-analysis |
To compare multiple interventions simultaneously by combining direct and indirect evidence. |
Comprehensive search for studies involving various interventions. |
Rigorous quality appraisal of all included studies. |
Combines data from different studies to compare multiple interventions. |
Statistical analysis, network diagrams. |
|
Prognostic Review |
To summarise and analyse evidence on the factors that predict outcomes of interest. |
Exhaustive search for studies on prognostic factors and outcomes. |
Rigorous appraisal to include high-quality prognostic studies. |
Synthesises findings to identify and evaluate prognostic factors. |
Meta-analysis, narrative synthesis. |
|
Psychometric Review |
To evaluate the measurement properties of psychometric instruments. |
Comprehensive search for studies assessing psychometric tools. |
Rigorous quality appraisal focusing on validity and reliability. |
Synthesises evidence on the measurement properties of psychometric instruments. |
Meta-analysis of psychometric properties. |
|
Review of Economic Evaluations |
To summarise and analyse evidence on the cost-effectiveness of interventions. |
Exhaustive search for studies on economic evaluations of interventions. |
Rigorous appraisal of study quality, focusing on economic methodologies. |
Synthesises findings on cost-effectiveness to inform economic decisions. |
Economic analysis, cost-effectiveness analysis. |
|
Systematic Review of Epidemiology Studies |
To synthesise evidence on the distribution and determinants of health-related states or events. |
Comprehensive search for epidemiological studies. |
Rigorous quality appraisal to ensure inclusion of high-quality studies. |
Integrates findings to understand patterns and causes of health-related states or events. |
Descriptive analysis, meta-analysis. |
|
Living Reviews |
To provide continuously updated summaries of evidence as new studies become available. |
Continuous search to incorporate the latest research. |
Ongoing quality appraisal to include new, high-quality studies. |
Continuously updates evidence synthesis to reflect the latest findings. |
Dynamic analysis, regular updates. |
Table inspired by: Meeting the review family: exploring review types and associated information retrieval requirements. DOI: 10.1111/hir.12276
Systematic reviews aim to answer a precisely defined research question by gathering all evidence that meets specifically defined criteria. In medicine, this evidence often comes from other published randomized clinical trials.
A defining characteristic of a systematic review is that it includes a well-defined question, well-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria, a screening process conducted by at least two reviewers, a quality assessment of the evidence, and documentation of the review process in line with professional guidelines.
For example, a systematic review often follows the PRISMA Checklist, and the screening process is documented in a flowchart. Find the PRISMA checklist and flowchart here (http://www.prisma-statement.org/)
Find the latest version of the PRISMA checklist, along with translations into other languages and adaptations for professional/methodological contexts, on the EQUATOR Network.
https://www.equator-network.org/reporting-guidelines/prisma/
How to Write a Systematic Review Without Meta-analysis. | DOI: 10.4103/ijamr.ijamr_296_23
Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences : A Practical Guide: | ISBN : 9781405150149.
Procedures for Performing Systematic Reviews. | Technical Report
Find Murdoch University Library´s disciplinary guidance in how to conduct a systematic review here: https://libguides.murdoch.edu.au/c.php?g=917599&p=6916674