Cookies

We use cookies to ensure that we give you the best experience on our website. You can change your cookie settings at any time. Otherwise, we'll assume you're OK to continue.

University Library

Systematic Reviews

Systematic Reviews are most frequently conducted in the fields of education, health & medicine, social policy or psychology. Increasingly, with the focus on multidisciplinary research, researchers in other areas may find yourselves involved in conducting or supporting a systematic review.

Whilst Durham University Library does not currently offer a dedicated systematic review support service, the Library may be able to help. Whether you are involved in a systematic review for the first time as part of your postgraduate study or a grant proposal, or have previous experience conducting one as part of wider research projects, the resources collected here offer practical guidance and support, and you can contact your department's Liaison Librarian for assistance in constructing effective and comprehensive search strategies and identifying appropriate resources.


Definition

"A Systematic Review is a literature review that is designed to locate, appraise and synthesise the best available evidence relating to a specific research question and provide informative and evidence-based answers." (Boland et al, 2014)

It aims to review the available research evidence with the same level of rigour that should be used in producing the research evidence in the first place (Hemingway & Brereton, 2009), taking steps to "reduce/make transparent hidden bias and 'error'" (Newman & Dickson, 2012) and allowing "potentially unmanageable amounts of literature to be managed in a scientifically credibel and reliable way (Torgerson, Hall & Light, 2012).

To achieve this, a Systematic Review seeks to:

  • answer a pre-defined and clearly formulated research question.
  • use a transparent, comprehensive and pre-defined (to reduce the potential bias in the search and identification process) search strategy to locate the best available evidence, and to allow others to replicate that search process.
  • set and apply pre-defined inclusion and exclusion criteria (to reduce potential bias in the selection process) for research evidence identified as part of the search process.
  • critically assess the selected studies in terms of quality and relevance, and to identify and account for potential bias.
  • provide a balance and impartial summary and interpretation of the findings of the studies, drawing any relevant conclusions or identifying any identified gaps or flaws in the available research evidence.

The end goal is to produce more reliable findings that can be used to inform future decision-making in that field (Higgins & Green, 2011).


Systematic Review vs Literature Review

A Systematic Review is not just a 'big' literature review. Whilst both seek to provide a summary of the available literature on a topic, a Systematic Review is expected to be more rigorous, and ultimately to be transparent and replicable.

Systematic Review Literature Review
Objectives Focussed on and by a single, pre-determined research question, with clear objectives identified and stated prior to conducting the primary search of the literature. Not necessarily focussed on a single research question. May describe an overview around a theme or topic of research. Clear objectives for the literature search may not be clearly identified.
Preparation Methods of identification, selection, evaluation and synthesis are pre-defined to minimise the risk of bias. Methods of identification, selection, evaluation and synthesis may change subject to authors changing awareness and knowledge of evidence presented, building in the authors subjective knowledge and bias into the review.
Design & Methodology Based on clear identifiable steps with the purpose of being replicable. No clear rationale, based on expert substantive knowledge of author(s).
Selection of Evidence

Explicit over how reviews included were identified and selected.
Intended to search exhaustively, and account for, all relevant studied.

Selection is not made explicit. Unclear whether selected evidence is representative, comprehensive or a (biased) sample.
Evaluation of Evidence All assumptions and judgments are made explicit against identified criteria and open to scrutiny and replication. Subject to author(s) knowledge and opinion.
Outcomes and data synthesis Clear summary of studies, including an objective assessment of the quality of the evidence presented and potential for bias in the studies selected. Summary based on studies may not address in detail quality of data or presence of potential bias.

The above table was based upon comparisons found in Torgerson, Hall and Light (2012) (in Arthur et al. (2012)) and Bettany-Saltikov (2012).


Stages of a Systematic Review

Any Systematic Review should be approached in a methodical way, with several key steps outlined below. There are various ways this process is outlined in the literature, although all roughly following a similar process. Examples form the literature are included in the References section below.

  1. Define a formulate the research question.
  2. Define inclusion/exclusion criteria.
  3. Define a transparent and comprehensive search strategy.
  4. Search for studies based on pre-defined search strategy.
  5. Selection of studies based on pre-defined inclusion/exclusion criteria.
  6. Coding of data collected and selected.
  7. Critical assessment of studies in terms of quality, relevance, and addressing potential bias in each study.
  8. Synthesis of findings.
  9. Interpret the results with an eye on impartiality and reducing potential bias of the authors, and draw any conclusions.

References

(Boland et al, 2014)

  1. Definition of question / problem
  2. Identification of available evidence
  3. Critical assessment of available evidence
  4. Synthesis of findings and drawing of conclusion(s)

(Newman & Dickson, 2012)

  1. Formulate a review question
  2. Search and selection of studies
  3. Coding to describe studies
  4. Critical assessment of studies (quality and relevance)
  5. Synthesis of results
  6. Deriving conclusions and implications

(Torgerson, Hall and Light, 2012)

  1. Transparent, comprehensive search strategy
  2. Clear pre-specified inclusion/exclusion criteria
  3. Explicit methods for coding, quality appraising and synthesising included studies

(Cochrane Collaboration, eight stages of doing a systematic review)

  1. Define review question and develop criteria for inclusion of studies
  2. Search for studies
  3. Select studies and collect data
  4. Assess risk of bias in selected studies
  5. Analyse data and undertake meta-analyses
  6. Address reporting biases
  7. Present results and summary of findings
  8. Interpret results and draw conclusions

Useful Examples of Systematic Reviews

Below we have tried to provide some useful examples of systematic reviews where you can access and review the search strategy's employed. This may be of interest when approaching your own Systematic Review, but also even if you are not engaged in a systematic review, as visible examples of how other researchers have employed various search tools and techniques to construct a well-focussed but comprehensive search strategy.


Examples


Online Guides and Resources


Finding Published Systematic Reviews

The resources below are available to identify if a systematic review of your topic of research already exists, beyond subject databases you may already be familiar with where published in academic journal articles.


Your Academic Liaison Librarian

James Bisset

Academic Liaison Librarian
Researcher Support

james.bisset@durham.ac.uk

0191 334 1589

Researcher 1-2-1

Book a consultation

Need help? Drop me an email or request a 30 minute 1-to-1 consultation to scale any brick walls in your way.