Systematic Review Methodology: Conducting High-Quality Reviews and Understanding Their Significance in Evidence-Based Practice
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.56570/jimgs.v2i1.76Keywords:
Systematic Review, Evidence-Based Practice, Research Question, Literature Search, PICO Framework, Data Extraction, Quality Assessment, Risk of Bias, Reporting Guidelines, PRISMAAbstract
Systematic reviews play a crucial role in evidence-based research, providing a platform for evaluating and synthesizing existing literature. They are especially valuable in addressing complex questions and identifying patterns across multiple studies, thereby aiding in the identification of knowledge gaps and prioritization of future research. This review aims to provide a guide for researchers, students, and others interested in conducting systematic reviews by outlining the key components, including formulating a research question, searching for relevant literature, appraising evidence quality, and reporting findings. By following these guidelines, systematic reviews can be transparent, reproducible, and credible. The significance of systematic reviews has increased in various fields, such as education, psychology, and medicine, due to the exponential growth in published studies. This guide emphasizes the importance of a rigorous and structured approach to conducting high-quality systematic reviews that contribute to the current understanding of complex issues, inform clinical practice and policy, and ultimately impact medical practices and policies.References
Pati D, Lorusso LN. How to Write a Systematic Review of the Literature. HERD. 2018;11(1):15-30. doi:10.1177/1937586717747384
Harris JD, Quatman CE, Manring MM, Siston RA, Flanigan DC. How to write a systematic review. Am J Sports Med. 2014;42(11):2761-2768. doi:10.1177/0363546513497567
Clarke J. What is a systematic review? Evidence-Based Nursing. 2011;14(3):64-64. doi:10.1136/ebn.2011.0049
Gopalakrishnan S, Ganeshkumar P. Systematic Reviews and Meta-analysis: Understanding the Best Evidence in Primary Healthcare. J Family Med Prim Care. 2013;2(1):9-14. doi:10.4103/2249-4863.109934
Ratan SK, Anand T, Ratan J. Formulation of Research Question. Stepwise Approach. J Indian Assoc Pediatr Surg. 2019;24(1):15-20. doi:10.4103/jiaps.JIAPS_76_18
Linares-Espinós E, Hernández V, Domínguez-Escrig JL, et al. Methodology of a systematic review. Metodología de una revisión sistemática. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018;42(8):499-506. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2018.01.010
Matharu GS, Buckley CD. Performing a literature review. BMJ. 2012. doi:10.1136/sbmj.e404
Butler A, Hall H, Copnell B. A Guide to Writing a Qualitative Systematic Review Protocol to Enhance Evidence-Based Practice in Nursing and Health Care. Worldviews Evid Based Nurs. 2016;13(3):241-249. doi:10.1111/wvn.12134
Bramer WM, Rethlefsen ML, Kleijnen J, Franco OH. Optimal database combinations for literature searches in systematic reviews: A prospective exploratory study. Systematic Reviews. 2017;6(1). doi:10.1186/s13643-017-0644-y
Bramer WM, de Jonge GB, Rethlefsen ML, Mast F, Kleijnen J. A systematic approach to searching: an efficient and complete method to develop literature searches. J Med Libr Assoc. 2018;106(4):531-541. doi:10.5195/jmla.2018.283
Polanin JR, Pigott TD, Espelage DL, Grotpeter JK. Best practice guidelines for abstract screening large-evidence systematic reviews and meta-analyses. Res Synth Methods. 2019;10(3):330-342. doi:10.1002/jrsm.1354
Meline T. Selecting Studies for Systemic Review: Inclusion and Exclusion Criteria. Contemporary Issues in Communication Science and Disorders. 2006;33(Spring):21-27. doi:10.1044/cicsd_33_s_21
Munn Z, Tufanaru C, Aromataris E. JBI's systematic reviews. AJN, American Journal of Nursing. 2014;114(7):49-54. doi:10.1097/01.naj.0000451683.66447.89
Norman C, Leeflang M, Névéol A. Data Extraction and Synthesis in Systematic Reviews of Diagnostic Test Accuracy: A Corpus for Automating and Evaluating the Process. AMIA Annu Symp Proc. 2018;2018:817-826. Published 2018 Dec 5.
van den Berg T, Heymans MW, Leone SS, et al. Overview of data-synthesis in systematic reviews of studies on outcome prediction models. BMC Medical Research Methodology. 2013;13(1). doi:10.1186/1471-2288-13-42
Luchini C, Veronese N, Nottegar A, et al. Assessing the quality of studies in meta-research: Review/guidelines on the most important quality assessment tools. Pharm Stat. 2021;20(1):185-195. doi:10.1002/pst.2068
Cochrane Methods Bias. RoB 2: A revised Cochrane risk-of-bias tool for randomized trials | Cochrane Bias. https://methods.cochrane.org/bias/resources/rob-2-revised-cochrane-risk-bias-tool-randomized-trials. Accessed May 1, 2023.
The Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. Ottawa Hospital Research Institute. https://www.ohri.ca/programs/clinical_epidemiology/ox ford.asp. Accessed May 1, 2023.
Shea BJ, Reeves BC, Wells G, et al. Amstar 2: A critical appraisal tool for systematic reviews that include randomised or non-randomised studies of healthcare interventions, or both. BMJ. 2017. doi:10.1136/bmj.j4008
Sterne JAC, Hernán MA, Reeves BC, et al. Robins-I: A tool for assessing risk of bias in non-randomised studies of interventions. BMJ. 2016:i4919. doi:10.1136/bmj.i4919
What is grade? BMJ Best Practice. https://bestpractice.bmj.com/info/us/toolkit/learn-ebm/what-is-grade/. Accessed May 1, 2023.
Page MJ, McKenzie JE, Bossuyt PM, et al. The PRISMA 2020 statement: an updated guideline for reporting systematic reviews. BMJ. 2021;372:n71. Published 2021 Mar 29. doi:10.1136/bmj.n71
Moher D. Optimal strategies to consider when Peer reviewing a systematic review and meta-analysis. BMC Medicine. 2015;13(1). doi:10.1186/s12916-015-0509-y
Bahadoran Z, Mirmiran P, Kashfi K, Ghasemi A. The Principles of Biomedical Scientific Writing: Title. Int J Endocrinol Metab. 2019;17(4):e98326. Published 2019 Oct 22. doi:10.5812/ijem.98326
Cals JW, Kotz D. Effective writing and publishing scientific papers, part II: title and abstract. J Clin Epidemiol. 2013;66(6):585. doi:10.1016/j.jclinepi.2013.01.005
Linares-Espinós E, Hernández V, Domínguez-Escrig JL, et al. Methodology of a systematic review. Metodología de una revisión sistemática. Actas Urol Esp (Engl Ed). 2018;42(8):499-506. doi:10.1016/j.acuro.2018.01.010
