Are systematic reviews the best study design for you?
Try the quiz below to find out
Here is a guide to some of the literature review types available and their key characteristics.
| Systematic Review | Integrative Review | Scoping Review | Literature Review | |
| Purpose & Features |
To evaluate all the best quality evidence on a topic to answer a particular research question. Rigorous with explicit and reproducible methodology. Inclusion criteria, search strategies and analysis details are included. |
Gather and synthesize both empirical and theoretical evidence relevant to a clearly defined problem. States inclusion criteria, search strategy, extraction, appraisal and analysis plan. |
Assess the size and scope of existing literature on a topic, generally conducted when literature is diverse in type. Does not aim to answer a particular question. Rigorous with explicit and reproducible methodology. Inclusion criteria, search strategies and methods are included. |
Broad, selective view of the literature on a topic. Analysis may be chronological, conceptual or thematic. Usually lacks inclusion criteria and search strategies. Not comprehensive and vulnerable to bias. |
| Research Question |
Specific |
Directly linked to the identified problem, where there is a knowledge gap |
May be broad |
Not specific |
| Literature types included |
Well-defined; usually primary research. |
Empirical and theoretical types. |
All types depending on the research question. |
High-quality peer-reviewed articles, but also may include conference papers, news or other credible sources. |
|
Data Extraction |
Always | Varies depending on objectives | Varies depending on objectives | Not required |
| Resources | More than 2 people. 12 - 18+ months. |
Flexible | Flexible | Flexible |
If you have been assigned a systematic review as part of your coursework, it's important to understand that this process can be quite lengthy and is often best tackled by two or more researchers working together. However, you can still follow a systematic search process on your own, and you might find the framework for a Rapid Review to be helpful. However, always follow your course outline and check with your instructor.
See:
Garritty, C., Hamel, C., Trivella, M., Gartlehner, G., Nussbaumer-Streit, B., Devane, D., Kamel, C., Griebler, U., & King, V. J. (2024). Updated recommendations for the Cochrane rapid review methods guidance for rapid reviews of effectiveness. BMJ, 384, e076335. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj-2023-076335
Cochrane systematic review:
Kumar, A., Delbaere, K., Zijlstra, G. A. R., Carpenter, H., Iliffe, S., Masud, T., Skelton, D., Morris, R., & Kenick, D. (2014). Exercise for reducing fear of falling in older people living in the community. Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews. https://doi.org/10.1002/14651858.CD009848.pub2
Qualitative systematic review:
Mytton, J., Ingram, J., Manns, S., & Thomas, J. (2014). Facilitators and Barriers to Engagement in Parenting Programs: A Qualitative Systematic Review. Health Education & Behavior, 41(2), 127–137. https://doi.org/10.1177/1090198113485755
Joanna Briggs Institute (JBI) systematic review:
Ellwood, L., Torun, G., Bahar, Z., & Fernandez, R. (2019). Effects of flavonoid-rich fruits on hypertension in adults: A systematic review. JBI Database of Systematic Reviews and Implementation Reports, 17, 2075-2105. https://doi.org/10.11124/JBISRIR-D-19-00050
Mixed methods systematic review:
Kinsella, N., Stattin, P., Cahill, D., Brown, C., Bill-Axelson, A., Bratt, O., Carlsson, S., & Van Hemelrijck, M. (2018). Factors influencing men’s choice of and adherence to active surveillance for low-risk prostate cancer: A mixed-method systematic review. European Urology, 74(3), 261–280. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.eururo.2018.02.026
|
Further reading Dhollande S., Taylor A., Meyer S., & Scott M. (2021) Conducting integrative reviews: A guide for novice nursing researchers. Journal of Research in Nursing, 26(5), 427-438. https://doi.org/10.1177/1744987121997907 Dobbins, M. (2017). Rapid review guidebook. National Collaborating Centre for Methods and Tools. https://www.nccmt.ca/tools/rapid-review-guidebook Grant, M.J., & Booth, A. (2009). A typology of reviews: An analysis of 14 review types and associated methodologies. Health Information and Libraries Journal, 26(2), 91–108. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-1842.2009.00848.x Mak S, Thomas A. (2022). Steps for Conducting a Scoping Review. Journal of Graduate Medical Education,14(5), 565-567. https://doi.org/10.4300/JGME-D-22-00621.1 Munn, Z., Peters, M. D. J., Stern, C., Tufanaru, C., McArthur, A., & Aromataris, E. (2018). Systematic review or scoping review? Guidance for authors when choosing between a systematic or scoping review approach. BMC Medical Research Methodology, 18(1), 143–143. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12874-018-0611-x Toronto, C., & Remington, R. (2020). A step-by-step guide to conducting an integrative review. Springer International. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-030-37504-1
|
A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit methods aimed at minimizing bias, in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making. (See Section 1.2 in the Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions).
You might undertake a systematic review under the following circumstances:
Adapted from Salis, A. Systematically review the literature [Webinar]. Salis Institute. https://www.salisinstitute.com/
1. Gather your team: You will need at least two people to manage the task; however, having a few additional team members for screening, searching, and analysis is ideal.
2. Define the question: Formulating a clear, specific question will help ensure that your research yields relevant results. See Defining the research question
3. Identify recent or ongoing systematic reviews: Look for any systematic reviews that have been published recently or are currently in progress.
4. Develop the protocol: Establish inclusion and exclusion criteria that outline the process for selecting studies.
5. Register the protocol: if you are conducting either a systematic or scoping review.
6. Develop the search strategy: Create a comprehensive strategy for searching relevant sources to identify evidence. See our Searching systematically guide
7. Search relevant sources: Conduct a thorough search in these sources to find the necessary evidence.
8. Screen the results: Carefully appraise and select suitable studies from the search results.
9. Synthesize the Data: Combine the findings to form a coherent summary of the evidence.
10. Document the Search Process: Keep a detailed record of how the search was conducted.
11. Write the Review: Prepare the final review based on your findings.
The PICO structure can be used to help you put together a search strategy and formulate the question:
Participants, Patient or Population
Intervention(s) (therapy, treatment, etc.)
Comparision (other intervention or treatment, no treatment, etc.)
Outcome(s)
In some cases the review question may also include the Study Design (PICOS). This is outlined in the Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, University of York, guide “Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care”:
“The review question can be framed in terms of the population, intervention(s), comparator(s) and outcomes of the studies that will be included in the review. These elements of the review question, together with study design, will then be refined in order to determine the specific inclusion criteria that will be used when selecting studies for the review.”
"Not every review question will specify type of study design to be included". See Levels of Evidence page for hierarchy of study design.
A protocol is more than just a planning document; it acts as your step-by-step guide for the project. By developing a clear protocol, you ensure that your systematic review is done efficiently and accurately, which helps your team communicate better. This preparation also makes writing the manuscript much easier.
Today, many journals require systematic reviews to be backed by registered protocols. The PRISMA Reporting Standard emphasizes this need, stating that the information included in the systematic review protocol is an "essential element" (PRISMA 2020 Item 24). Additionally, well-known resources like the Cochrane Handbook and the Institute of Medicine Standards highlight that creating a protocol is a crucial part of completing a successful systematic review. Following this practice will enhance the quality and reliability of your research.
It is important when searching for evidence that search terms are referred back to your original PICO question. The process of finding evidence follows these steps:
1. Identify terms to fit your PICO question. These keywords will be used in searching databases. Check thesaurus terms in the relevant databases to identify other relevant keywords or subject terms to include in your search. Be aware of differences in American and English spelling and terminology. Thesaurus terms may also vary between databases. For health fields, you can use tools such as PubReminer to help you determine the most commonly used keywords in a database
2. Find systematic reviews - it's helpful to find out if a systematic review has been done or is underway. Published reviews also provide a starting point for identifying the studies. Completed and published systematic reviews can be found using a comprehensive datatabase search. Filtering by "review" or "systematic review" may help narrow the results to only systematic reviews in some databases.
3. Find journal articles - search for published primary studies in databases such as MEDLINE, CINAHL, PsycINFO. Citation searching in Scopus or Web of Science, allows you to follow a research trail forwards, backwards or to related research.
4. Search the grey literature, such as conference proceedings, theses, reports and unpublished literature.
5. Appraisal and selection of studies. Structured appraisal helps to select the highest quality of evidence available and minimise bias.
6. Synthesis of study results. Data from each individual study needs to be collated, combined and summarised. Quantitative systematic reviews use formal statisitical techniques such as meta-analysis to perform this step.
"As well as drawing results together, synthesis should consider the strength of evidence, explore whether any observed effects are consistent across studies, and investigate possible reasons for any inconsistencies" (Centre for Reviews and Dissemination, 2009, section 1.3.5). Systematic reviews: CRD's guidance for undertaking reviews in health care
The search process needs to be documented in enough detail to ensure that it can be reported correctly in the review and reproduced for verification. See the link below for a worksheet that may be helpful to use in documenting your progress.
For each database search record:
EndNote software can be used to record full bibliographical details for each citation and additional notes relating to the selection and evaluation of that source.
Introduction to Health Research (90min)
Research Governance Service (RGS): A Researcher’s Guide (2hr)
Literature Searching & Management (60min)
Good Clinical Practice in Australia (4.5hrs)
A Practical Guide to Critical Appraisal (90min)
Research with People who Experience Mental Health Illnesses (60min)
The Essentials of Writing a Research Protocol (90min)
Health Economics Application to Research (90min)
Health Economics: Cost Effectiveness for Clinical Trials (90min)
Lung Health in First Nations Children: Module 1 (90min)
Lung Health in First Nations Children: Module 2 (90min)
Help the Biostatistician Help You (30min)
Guide to HeSANDA and Health Data Australia (15min)
How to Involve Consumers in Health and Medical Research (30min)
Consumer and Community Involvement in Health Research (30min)
Consumer and Community Involvement and Grant Writing (30min)
Copyright © 2025 The University of Notre Dame Australia | CRICOS Provider Code: 01032F | TEQSA PRV12170 | RTO Code 0064
