This subject guide provides an overview of what a systematic review is and how Research Librarians can help researchers at the University of Tasmania during a systematic review process. This guide focuses on systematic reviews in a Health Sciences setting.
A systematic review attempts to collate all empirical evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. It uses explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view to minimizing bias, thus providing more reliable findings from which conclusions can be drawn and decisions made (Antman 1992, Oxman 1993).
Systematic reviews are usually a team effort - at least two people are needed, preferably three or four. Important areas of expertise to cover are: content expert, systematic review methods expert, statistician, librarian, reference management.
From EBBP Training Portal
There are various types of literature reviews.
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, vol. 36, no. 3, pp. 202-222.
This is an open access article.
These resources outline the difference between a systematic review and a literature review:
This article is only accessible for UTAS staff and students.
From Munn, Z, Peters, MDJ, 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, vol. 18, no. 1, p. 143.
"Researchers may conduct scoping reviews instead of systematic reviews where the purpose of the review is to identify knowledge gaps, scope a body of literature, clarify concepts or to investigate research conduct. While useful in their own right, scoping reviews may also be helpful precursors to systematic reviews and can be used to confirm the relevance of inclusion criteria and potential questions."
Many, but not all, systematic reviews contain meta-analyses. Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarise the results of independent studies. By combining information from all relevant studies, meta-analyses can provide more precise estimates of the effects of health care than those derived from the individual studies included within a review. Meta-analyses also facilitate investigations of the consistency of evidence across studies, and the exploration of differences across studies.
More information on meta-analyses can be found in Cochrane Handbook, Chapter 10.
Conducting a rapid review of the literature is an effective way to synthesise current evidence on a topic. Rapid reviews differ from systematic reviews in that the process is tailored for a shorter timeline, but it is still important to use rigorous methodology to ensure that the best available research evidence is used in decision making. The National Collaborating Centre of Methods and Tools (NCCMT) has developed a Rapid Review Guidebook that details each step in the rapid review process, with notes on how to tailor the process given resource limitations.
An umbrella review is a synthesis of existing reviews, only including the highest level of evidence such as systematic reviews and meta-analyses. It allows the findings of different reviews relevant to a review question to be compared and contrasted.
Methodology paper: Aromataris, E, Fernandez, R, Godfrey, CM, Holly, C, Khalil, H & Tungpunkom, P 2015, 'Summarizing systematic reviews: Methodological development, conduct and reporting of an umbrella review approach', Int J Evid Based Healthc, vol. 13, no. 3, pp. 132-140.
Are you unsure what type of literature review best suits your needs? You may like to try this short quiz developed by Deakin University: