These are some of the commonly used terms associated with systematic reviews.
Note: This is not intended to be a comprehensive list.
|
Term |
Definition |
|
An online tool which helps reviewers undertake the screening process. |
|
|
(Also 'quality assessment') A process by which methodological quality and risk of bias is assessed in individual studies. |
|
|
Pulling out the useful data from individual studies. |
|
|
(Also 'EBP') "The conscientious use of current best evidence in making decisions about patient care" (Sackett, Straus, Richardson, Rosenberg, & Haynes, 2000). Systematic and scoping reviews are two publication types that adhere to EBP principles. |
|
|
Non published, or ephemerally released evidence, e.g. Government policy document / report |
|
|
(Also 'forest plot') A form of data synthesis that typically appears as data table accompanying an SR. Shows the degree of effect of each included study, as well as an ‘overall average’. |
|
|
The typical framework for breaking down a systematic review question. Stands for population, intervention, comparison, outcome. Can include timeline where relevant. |
|
|
Preferred reporting guidelines for systematic reviews and meta-analysis (There is a also "PRISMA-P" for Protocol guidelines). |
|
|
An online registry for SR Protocols. |
|
|
The ‘recipe’ for how the review will be undertaken. Often published. |
|
|
Like a systematic review, but a quality assessment is typically not done. (Note: not the same as "scoping out the literature") |
|
|
A two part process where articles are assessed for their suitability for inclusion in the review. |
|
|
Pre-made search strategies you can incorporate into your search, saving you time. |
|
|
(Also 'SR') 'A review that uses explicit, systematic methods to collate and synthesise findings of studies that address a clearly formulated question.' -- PRISMA statement |