This guide will explain the process of conducting a systematic review in more detail as well as provide you with relevant resources for your review.
Move through the slide deck below to get an overview of systematic reviews. Alternatively, download the PDF document at the bottom of this box.
The interactive element below requires you to enable cookies in your web browser |
What are the different elements of a systematic review?
What is it? |
A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesise all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit and reproducible methods aimed at minimising bias in the review process, in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making. |
Reasons for choosing |
To address a clearly focused review question by finding the best available, relevant research studies and synthesising the results. |
Question |
Focused on a single topic. |
Sources / Search |
A peer review protocol or plan is included. Clear objectives are identified. Comprehensive sources and explicit and reproducible search strategy. |
Eligibility criteria |
Eligibility criteria is clearly defined at the outset i.e. before the review is conducted. |
Selection |
Criterion-based selection that is uniformly applied, clear and explicit. |
Appraisal |
Rigorous critical appraisal, and evaluation of study quality. |
Synthesis |
Clear summaries of studies based on high quality evidence. |
Inferences |
Evidence based. |
A meta-analysis is a statistical process for amalgamating the data from different primary studies which have investigated the same issue, using suitably homogenous data.
Note that while most meta-analyses arise from a systematic review of the literature, it possible to perform a meta-analysis without doing a systematic review.
Watch the following video by Dr Saravana Kumar, Professor in Allied Health and Health Services Research, UniSA, to learn more.
Video Length: 4:44
Type |
Overview |
Literature review
|
Literature reviews examine existing knowledge on a specified topic. They can provide an historical overview of a field of research, show emerging trends, identify knowledge gaps, and/or contextualise a research project within the broader scholarly conversation. |
Scoping review |
Aims to provide an overview or map of the available evidence, focusing on a particular topic, field, concept, or issue. Conducted according to similar rigorous and transparent methods as systematic reviews, but typically answers broad questions and generally does not require critical appraisal. |
Rapid review |
'A rapid review is a form of knowledge synthesis that accelerates the process of conducting a traditional systematic review through streamlining or omitting a variety of methods to produce evidence in a resource-efficient manner.' Hamel et al. (2021) p.80. |
Systematic review |
Attempts to identify, appraise and synthesise all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a given research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit and reproducible methods aimed at minimising bias in the review process, in order to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform decision making. |
Umbrella review
|
Umbrella reviews use explicit and systematic methods to search for, identify, extract data from, and analyse the results of multiple systematic reviews on related research questions. |
These definitions are sourced from a variety of methodology papers and guidelines found throughout this Guide.
The systematic review in context:
Original image source: HLWIKI International (closed 2018), adapted under Creative Commons (CC BY-NC-SA 2.5 CA)
Using guidelines and standards will help you undertake your systematic review in accordance with best practice. Your research group, disciplinary area, and where you plan to publish will all potentially influence which guidelines and standards you follow.
“The process of preparing and publishing a Cochrane Review is different from that for other journals. Reviews are typically registered at conception and there is a closer working relationship between Cochrane and the review authors. In addition, Cochrane Reviews follow a highly structured format so that they can be published within the Cochrane Database of Systematic Reviews, and their preparation follows a structured process.”
-Cochrane Handbook, Part 1, Chapter 2.1.
This is the plan for your review.
Then, per your protocol: