Systematic reviews comprehensively identify, select, appraise, and synthesize research results from individual studies. The systematic review methodology is considered a gold-standard for evidence-based practice because it summarizes findings and seeks to come to a recommendation on a specific topic. For this reason, well-designed and methodologically sound systematic reviews can be useful for answering specific clinical questions and making decisions in health care (Chandler et al., 2021).
While systematic reviews can have many advantages, the high degree of rigour needed to carry them out demands many resources, including:
How many people will be involved in your project, and what will their roles be? Some publishing groups, such as Cochrane, will not publish a systematic review if it is done by a single author. Having team members with expertise in the topic area and who specialize in different disciplines can offer a range of perspectives and reduce the likelihood of errors (Lasserson et al., 2021). It is also important that your team include someone with expertise in systematic review methodology, such as a librarian.
The systematic review process can take many months, or even several years. Team members must be committed to dedicating a great amount of effort and time to ensure that all work is of high quality. Additionally, systematic reviews need to be updated as new evidence emerges. Are you and your collaborators dedicated to keeping your publication relevant over the long term?
Since systematic reviews demand so many resources, they require funding. Where will you obtain on-going funding to complete your project?
Do you have access to multiple relevant databases? Depending on your research question, you may need to search databases that are not specific to the health sciences, so are not accessible through Nova Scotia Health’s library.
You will also want to use citation management software. Library Services supports staff and physicians using Zotero and Mendeley, reference tools which are both freely available online.
Other resources you may find useful for managing systematic reviews include JBI SUMARI, Rayyan, and Covidence.
A literature review, sometimes referred to as a narrative review, simply summarizes evidence on a topic. It does not necessarily answer a specific clinical question. A reviewer may “cherry-pick” evidence to support a hypothesis, so the results of a literature review can inform a trend. This is why literature search results must be used with caution when making decisions in health care (Maggio et al., 2016).
It is also possible to search systematically for literature to inform health care decision-making without conducting a systematic review.
The following table by Kysh (2013) presents a comparison of systematic reviews and literature reviews:
Deciding which type of review to conduct can depend on a number of factors. Cornell University Library has created a flow chart to help you decide what type of review is right for you. It can also be helpful to talk with colleagues who have published a review(s) to get their advice, or to connect with a Nova Scotia Health librarian for a consultation to discuss possible options in the context of your topic and available resources.
Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Thomas, J., Higgins, J. P. T., Deeks, J. J., & Clarke, M. J. (2021). Chapter I: Introduction. In: Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., Welch, V.A .(editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Kysh, L. (2013). Difference between a systematic review and a literature review. figshare. Poster. https://doi.org/10.6084/m9.figshare.766364.v1
Lasserson T.J., Thomas J., Higgins J.P.T. (2021). Chapter 1: Starting a review. In: Higgins, J.P.T., Thomas, J., Chandler, J., Cumpston, M., Li, T., Page, M.J., Welch, V.A .(editors). Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions version 6.2 (updated February 2021). Cochrane, 2021. Available from www.training.cochrane.org/handbook.
Maggio, L. A., Sewell, J. L., & Artino, A. R., Jr. (2016). The literature review: A foundation for high-quality medical education research. J Grad Med Educ. 8(3), 297–303. doi: 10.4300/JGME-D-16-00175.1.
Librarian Educator
0 Comments.