Subject Guides
Systematic Review
- Home
- Step 0: Pre-Review Tasks
- Step 1: Develop a Systematic Review Protocol
- Step 2: Choose Systematic Review Tools
- Step 3: Develop a Systematic Search Strategy
- Grey Literature This link opens in a new window
- Step 4: Register a Protocol
- Step 5: Run Finalized Searches
- Step 6: Standardized Article Screening
- Step 7: Appraise the Quality of the Included Studies
- Step 8: Data Extraction
- Step 9: Synthesize the Results
- Resources for Systematic Reviews in the Social Sciences
Subject Librarians
What is a Systematic Review?
"A systematic review attempts to identify, appraise and synthesize all the empirical evidence that meets pre-specified eligibility criteria to answer a specific research question. Researchers conducting systematic reviews use explicit, systematic methods that are selected with a view aimed at minimizing bias, to produce more reliable findings to inform decision making."
Source: https://www.cochranelibrary.com/about/about-cochrane-reviews
Required elements of a Systematic Review:
- A team to ensure unbiased screening
- Conducted according to Cochrane OR JBI guidelines
- Reported according to the PRISMA standards
- File a protocol a priori
- Reproducible and transparent search strategies of multiple applicable databases and grey literature resources: PRISMA-S
- Two phases of screening: Title/Abstract and Full Text by at least 2 screeners
- Documentation of included and excluded studies according to the PRISMA flow diagram
- Critical Appraisal of all included studies
- Documentation of data extraction process per protocol
- Citation of included studies, guidelines and tools utilized
The purpose of a systematic review is provide a synthesized, comprehensive view of the available literature on a specific topic. The systematic review methodology must be transparent, reproducible with strong validity and low risk of bias.
Systematic Review Process Map
Systematic Review Timeline
With 5 team members, an average systematic review takes approximately 62 - 67 weeks (Borah, et. al. , 2016)
Getting started | Assemble team and member roles, develop & refine research question, determine inclusion & exclusion criteria, acquire exemplar articles, meet with a librarian to develop search strategy, begin the protocol application | 4-6 weeks |
Primary search design | Determine applicable databases, grey literature sources and develop pilot search strategy. Complete pilot screening process. Confirm changes for final search strategy | 6-8 weeks |
Finalize search design | Adapt search strategy according to pilot screening feedback, peer review of finalized search strategy, run final search and begin title/abstract screening. | 6-8 weeks |
Screening | Phase 1: Title and abstract screening. Phase 2: Full text screening | 8-12 weeks |
Critical appraisal | Appraise quantity of included studies | 8-12 weeks |
Data extraction | Based upon a priori protocol | 8-12 weeks |
Write the review | Refer to reporting standards and guidelines: PRISMA 2020 | 8-12 weeks |
This table is an estimate of time to complete based on a team of 4-6 FTE researchers working with an experienced librarian.
- PredicTER
PredicTER is a software tool to help researchers and practitioners estimate the length of time necessary to complete a systematic review (SR) or systematic map (SM). All stages of the SR and SM processes are included by default, as listed in the guidelines of the Collaboration for Environmental Evidence (CEE). Default values for each input are taken from a survey of environmental evidence synthesis practitioners conducted by Neal Haddaway.
Systematic Review Guidance
- Aromataris E, Munn Z (Eds.). (2020). JBI Manual for Evidence Synthesis. Available from https://synthesismanual.jbi.global and https://doi.org/10.46658/JBIMES-20-01
- Campbell, M., McKenzie, J. E., Sowden, A., Katikireddi, S. V., Brennan, S. E., Ellis, S., … & Thomson, H. (2020). Synthesis without meta-analysis (SWiM) in systematic reviews: reporting guideline. BMJ, 368.https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.l6890
- Higgins J.P.T., Thomas J., Chandler J., Cumpston M., Li T., Page M.J., Welch V.A. (Eds.). (2020 update). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.1 (updated September 2020). Cochrane. https://training.cochrane.org/handbook/current
- Institute of Medicine (US) Committee on Standards for Systematic Reviews of Comparative Effectiveness Research, Eden, J., Levit, L., Berg, A., & Morton, S. (Eds.). (2011). Finding what works in health care: Standards for systematic reviews. National Academies Press (US). https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/24983062/
- Page, M. J., McKenzie, J. E., Bossuyt, P. M., Boutron, I., Hoffmann, T. C., Mulrow, C. D., … & Moher, D. (2021). The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmj.n71
- Last Updated: Nov 5, 2024 1:04 PM
- URL: https://libraryguides.binghamton.edu/systematicreview
- Print Page