We are still offering consultation services during the COVID-19 move to online instruction. Please feel free to reach out for virtual appointments! For more information on library services and resources, please click here.
According to the Cochrane Handbook, "systematic reviews seek to collate evidence that fits pre-specified eligibility criteria in order to answer a specific research question. They aim to minimize bias by using explicit, systematic methods documented in advance with a protocol".
Chandler J, Cumpston M, Thomas J, Higgins JPT, Deeks JJ, Clarke MJ. Chapter I: Introduction. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated August 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Is a systematic review a thorough or robust literature review?
No! A systematic review has different steps in its methodology than a literature or narrative review does. A systematic review can also be considered a type of primary research whereas a traditional literature or narrative review article is not.
A systematic review also has specific research team requirements including a bare minimum of TWO independent subject experts to complete the screening portions of the systematic review.
Additional information about systematic review may be found in SAGE Research Methods. Search for "systematic review" for definitions and other supporting resources.
There are many different review types being published in scholarly literature. Scroll down to see more information about different review types to determine which is the best fit for you.
What does a systematic review contain?
Systematic review methodology was developed by Cochrane and is still the gold standard today. It sets a "highly structured, transparent and reproducible methodology" (Chandler and Hopewell 2013). This involves:
Each of these items represents a complex and important piece of a systematic review. For more information about completing these steps, please see the recommended additional readings and/or reach out to one of our librarians.
Chandler J, Hopewell S. Cochrane methods – twenty years experience in developing systematic review methods. Systematic Reviews 2013; 2: 76.
Lasserson TJ, Thomas J, Higgins JPT. Chapter 1: Starting a review. In: Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Am I doing a systematic review?
Check out this flow chart from Cornell University to see what type of review most closely matches your project: https://www.library.cornell.edu/sites/default/files/SystematicReview_DecisionTreeMethodologies_v3.pdf
Systematic reviews are a very intensive review type typically requiring between 6 and 18 months to complete, depending on the scope of the project. A few other types of reviews that may be better suited for your project and/or timeline are listed below:
Literature Review: This is a traditional review article, sometimes known as a narrative review.
"Generic term: published materials that provide examination of recent or current literature. Can cover wide range of subjects at various levels of completeness and comprehensiveness. May include research findings map" (Grant, 2009)
Rapid Review: A rapid review follows the systematic review format but with a less intensive search process requiring a thorough search of one database rather than a minimum of three.
"Assessment of what is already known about a policy or practice issue, by using systematic review methods to search and critically appraise existing research" (Grant, 2009)
Systematized Review: A review type that does not meet the methodology requirements for a Systematic Review (such as two reviewers), but still follows similar methodology.
Scoping Review: A scoping review is a broader review to determine a general idea of what has been published on a topic.
"Preliminary assessment of potential size and scope of available research literature. Aims to identify nature and extent of research evidence (usually including ongoing research)" (Grant, 2009)
Umbrella Review: Commonly defined as a 'systematic review of systematic reviews'.
"Specifically refers to review compiling evidence from multiple reviews into one accessible and usable document. Focuses on broad condition or problem for which there are competing interventions and highlights reviews that address these interventions and their results" (Grant, 2009)
Broome, M.E., (1993). Integrative literature reviews for the development of concepts. In B.L. Rodgers & K.A. Knafl (Eds.), Concept Development in Nursing (231-250), (2nd ed.). Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Co.
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
Recommended Books on Systematic Reviews:
Higgins JPT, Thomas J, Chandler J, Cumpston M, Li T, Page MJ, Welch VA (editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.0 (updated July 2019). Cochrane, 2019. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research; Eden J, Levit L, Berg A, et al., editors. Finding What Works in Health Care: Standards for Systematic Reviews. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2011. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK209518/ doi: 10.17226/13059
Articles on Different Types of Reviews:
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.xnt
Khangura, Sara, Kristin Konnyu, Rob Cushman, Jeremy Grimshaw, and David Moher. (2012). Evidence Summaries: The Evolution of a Rapid Review Approach. Systematic Reviews, 1(1), 10. https://doi.org/10.1186/2046-4053-1-10.