Doing a systematic review, or a scoping review before beginning a systematic review? Read through this guide to determine if you are embarking on a systematic review (as defined here). See the boxes below that describe the roles of the researcher and the librarian in the process.
Consider requesting a general literature search in the first instance to get a feel for the amount of information available before refining your request.
A systematic review is a protocol-driven, comprehensive literature review, usually designed toanswer a specific clinical question. It involves a specific research methodology with well-defined, internationally accepted characteristics.
If you are not prepared to follow this strict methodology then perhaps another review type would be more appropriate. [See the Review Types tab that redirects to a guide from the Yale University's Harvey Cushing / John Hay Whitney Medical Library] The Yale University's Harvey Cushing / John Hay Whitney Medical Library also has an excellent series of short videos on the process of conducting a systematic review.
a clearly stated set of objectives with pre-defined eligibility criteria for studies;
an explicit, reproducible methodology; a systematic search that attempts to identify all studies that would meet the eligibility criteria;
an assessment of the validity of the findings of the included studies, for example through the assessment of risk of bias; and
a systematic presentation, and synthesis, of the characteristics and findings of the included studies.
Many systematic reviews contain meta-analyses. Meta-analysis is the use of statistical methods to summarize 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 (see The Cochrane Handbook Chapter 10). They also facilitate investigations of the consistency of evidence across studies, and the exploration of differences across studies.
Acknowledgement - much of the content in this guide has been adapted / copied from the Yale University's Harvey Cushing / John Hay Whitney Medical Library's guide on systematic reviews and other comprehensive searching guide.
Consider if a scoping review is required first.
Become familiar with standards for the design, conduct and reporting of systematic reviews. eg
. PRISMA - Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses
. Cochrane Handbook
. Institute of Medicine Standards for Systematic Reviews
. CASP Systematic review critical appraisal checklist
. JBI Reviewers' Manual
. An Introduction to Systematic Reviews
Allow sufficient time - systematic reviews take many months of work by the team. Systematic reviews take time to do well (link to a portion of the book by Booth et al).
Assemble your review team - systematic reviews are rarely done by a single individual.
Be prepared to screen large numbers of references. Searches for systematic reviews usually generate large numbers of citations.
Define the review question - key question/s to be answered using a PICO or other relevant framework, including inclusion and exclusion criteria.
The review team should meet with the Librarian to ensure clarity of understanding on the topic and the process that will be followed.
Request the librarian to do a scoping review to determine if the topic has already been reviewed.
Provide the librarian with any gold standard references that must be found from a search strategy.
Register the review protocol with PROSPERO - International Prospective Register of Systematic Reviews.
Ensure you have EndNote installed on any computer you will be using in doing the review.
Consider using tools such as RevMan from Cochrane, JBI SUMARI or Rayyan to manage the process. RevMan cannot be automatically installed on WA Health PCs. More information:
Covidence and Rayyan. Journal of the Medical Library Association : JMLA, 106(4), 580–583.
McGill Library Guide on using Rayyan for systematic reviews
Choose a quality publication to submit your paper for publication. Use tools such as Think, Check, Submit, or Identifying Predatory or Pseudo-Journals - World Association of Medical Editors (WAME).
The figure below describes the steps involved in producing a systematic review and was copied from:
Systematic review automation technologies / Guy Tsafnat, Paul Glasziou, Miew Keen Choong, Adam Dunn, Filippo Galgani and Enrico Coiera / Systematic Reviews 2014 3:74
Producing living systematic reviews:
A series of papers in J Clin Epidemiology November 2017
Living systematic review: 1. Introduction—the why, what, when, and how
Living systematic reviews: 2. Combining human and machine effort
Living systematic reviews: 3. Statistical methods for updating meta-analyses
Living systematic reviews: 4. Living guideline recommendations
Not enough I say! Expand the remit of living systematic reviews to inform future research
Determining if a systematic review has already been done on a topic.
Translating the research question/s into an appropriate search strategy.
Translating the search concepts into controlled vocabulary and keywords so that both precision and recall are maximized.
Choosing databases and other information sources to be searched.
Conducting the literature searches across all the information sources chosen and collating search results into an EndNote Library.
Maintaining records of search results and following up with alerts and updates as needed
Providing guidance and support with EndNote to manage citations and produce bibliographies.
Writing the literature search methodology section for the submitted manuscript.
Completing the search results elements of the PRISMA flow chart.
Providing documentation of searches to increase reproducibility.
Research librarians can partner on systematic reviews.
Searching to support the production of a systematic review is complex and time consuming - it takes weeks to months depending on the topic.
Librarians will provide you with search strategies and results as required by the 2009 PRISMA Statement for Reporting Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses of Studies That Evaluate Health Care Interventions: Explanation and Elaboration.